The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Amendment 0009 - Questions and Answers for 283 through 297
RFP HC1028-11-R-0104
| DOCUMENT |
| J-2 Requirements |
| SECTION NO. |
| X86 W/L/L Tier Definitions |
| SECTION NAME |
| X86 W/L/L Tier Definitions |
| SECTION TEXT |
| Table requirements |
| QUESTION |
| Previously Asked: Attachment 1 (Page 22) of the Technical Requirements document (X-86 W/L/L Tier Definitions) states a requirement for "Hot pluggable CPU/memory" for all five (5) system tiers. Hot pluggable CPU/memory is not a standard feature of industry standard x86 architecture, but is a feature generally found on more expensive business critical servers. We request that this requirement be removed for all five x-86 system tiers. |
Government Response to Question 30(Revised): Requirement of “Hot pluggable CPU/Memory” is necessary to ensure hardware solution provides availability and maintainability for any hosting requirement faced by CSD. The vendor should propose an option to provide a Hot Swappable solution in order to support customer workload that requires high availability. However Hot Swappable CPUs and Memory does not have to be a requirement for every system.
The previously asked question was an attempt to point out that “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” is not an industry standard, hardware feature [emphasis added] of the x86 architecture. In fact, only one hardware manufacture (Bull) offers this capability. VMWare does not support “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” as a hardware feature. The Government instructs Offerors to propose an option for “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory.” There is no hardware “option” to be offered for “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” as an Offeror would have to bid a system with that hardware feature. The government states “Hot Swappable CPUs and Memory does not have to be a requirement for every system” which seems to indicate that an Offeror must include at least one (1) system with the “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” hardware feature. All server tiers in the X86 W/L/L Tier Definitions contain this requirement.
1. We renew our request that this requirement be removed for all five x-86 system tiers.
2. Should the Government not remove this requirement, we request DISA modify the X-86 W/L/L Tier Definitions to specify which Tiers are not required to have this requirement.
3. Further, we request the government revise its Technical/Management evaluation criteria to specifically evaluate the server solution and supporting software (provisioning server and central management software) to meet the Government’s “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” requirement.
4. Since there is only one manufacturer of servers with a “Hot Pluggable CPU/Memory” hardware feature, will the government provide a Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition for the manufacturer of this server?
| ANSWER |
| The requirement for “Hot Swappable CPUs and Memory” has been removed from the tier structure for all servers. J-2, Requirements Document, Attachment 1, Server Tier definitions have been revised. J-5, para 6.3.3, has been revised. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Additional Hardware Components |
| SECTION TEXT |
| The Government will require utility service methods for adding generic add on devices or peripherals to the vendor-provided hardware. These additional components are special use requirements that do not fit into a standard service offering (for example: Crypto card, fax card, MUX card, etc.). The Government would provide the components for these special use cases and the vendors only obligation would be to provide installation of these components. |
| QUESTION |
| 1. Will the Government include a SLIN to allow the Offeror to charge for manufacturer certification/accreditation of Government furnished equipment to be included in Offeror-owned servers? Certification/Accreditation is required by the manufacturer for warranty purposes. |
2. Will the government relieve the Offeror of its availability requirements once GFE is installed in the Offeror’s server?
3. How does the government propose to track the GFE provided to the Offeror?
4. Is the government responsible for providing the Offeror firmware updates to the Offeror?
| ANSWER |
| 1. No, the Government will not include a SLIN for manufacturer certification/accreditation of Government Furnished Equipment. The Government is responsible for the manufacturer certification/accreditation of GFE. |
2. No, the offeror is not responsible for availability of the GFE component. The offeror's availability requirement will not be impacted unless the GFE component causes a hardware failure of the offeror's equipment.
3. The Government will identify the asset the specific serialized GFE component will be installed in. Before this asset is returned to the offeror, the Government will ask for the specific serialized GFE component to be removed and returned to the Government.
4. Yes, the Government will provide any and all firmware updates for the GFE component.
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-5. Performance Work Statement |
| SECTION NAME |
| None Provided |
| SECTION TEXT |
| “The Government will make the determination as to whether drives can be sanitized or destroyed.” |
| QUESTION |
| If the Government determines that a drive needs to be destroyed, how will they compensate the contractor for the device(s)? |
| ANSWER |
| The current policy is for media destruction, so vendors should include this in their utility pricing for each chipset. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Provisioning Management Infrastructure |
| SECTION TEXT |
| The offeror will provide a management infrastructure solution to include provisioning capabilities, hardware diagnostics, hardware monitoring, virtualization management, event logging, image repositories or additional back office processes required to reside in the CSD infrastructure to support the offeror’s technical solution. This offeror-provided infrastructure will be managed and maintained by the offeror, and will be subjected to DIACAP accreditation processes as well as relevant DISA STIG and security policies. Accreditation must be accomplished before the first order can be placed under this contract. |
| QUESTION |
| DIACAP Accreditation appears to be a NEW requirement. The offeror is aware that DISA’s DIACAP accreditation process can take three (3) months or longer before an ATO is issued. Further, DISA is operating a number of “systems” with IATO certification. |
1. Will the government evaluate each offeror’s Provisioning Management Infrastructure solution in terms of the length of time estimated to complete the DIACAP process?
2. If the Offeror is able to attain an IATO, will that be sufficient for DISA to begin issuing Call Orders?
3. Given the amount of documentation required of the Offeror to support DIACAP Accreditation, will the government enumerate the deliverables it requires of the Offeror:
a. Architecture Design Documentation
b. Ports and Protocols Documentation
c. COTS software Documentation
d. Risk Mitigation Plan
e. Implementation Schedule?
4. Does DISA envision separate DIACAP accreditations for the Offeror’s:
a. Call Order Management System
b. Provisioning Solution
c. Hardware Diagnostics and Hardware Monitoring Solution
d. Central Management Software solution (ITIL Processes)?
| ANSWER |
| DIACAP Accreditation is not a new requirement. It has been in effect since November 2007. The DIACAP accreditation process is identified at http://iase.disa.mil/diacap/. |
1. The Government will not use the DIACAP accreditation process as an evaluation factor.
2. The Offeror will provide DISA with the DIACAP requirements to apply for an IATO which is a form of accreditation, therefore call orders will be issued once IATO is granted.
3. All DIACAP requirements needed for the accreditation process will be enumerated to the Offeror including, Architecture Design documentation, Ports & Protocol documentation, COTS Software documentation, Risk Mitigation Plan and implementation schedule.
4. All management infrastructure housed within in a DISA facility’s floor space and on DISA’s Internet Protocol address space will be included into the same accreditation package. If DISA connects to Offerors solution via agents/clients outside of DISA floor and address space, then there will be no need to include in the accreditation package.a. See Question 135. The Government anticipates the Call Order Management System will reside at the vendor location thus DIACAP accreditation and IATO is not required.
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION TEXT |
| (Windows Server, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, Solaris, VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus ) |
| QUESTION |
| Will the Government specify the editions of Windows Server 2008 R2 it will likely require (Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, DataCenter Edition, or any special Purpose Editions)? |
| ANSWER |
| Current requirement is for Enterprise Edition, DataCenter Edition, Standard Edition (least frequently ordered). |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-7, Amendment 007 (X86 Chipset Pricing Model) |
| SECTION NAME |
| SLINS 2008AA thru 2008AC |
| SECTION TEXT |
| Tier Three Image, Tier Four Image, Tier Five Image |
| QUESTION |
| Given the government requires Windows Server 2008 (possibly multiple editions), Red Hat (N, N-1, N-2), SUSE (N, N-1, N-2), and Solaris (N, N-1, N-2), is the Offeror required to price the sum of each Operating System, listed above plus monitoring/management software for each operating system into each Tier Image? Shouldn’t there be a separate image price for EACH N operating system, N-1 Operating System, and N-2 Operating System for each Server Tier? |
| ANSWER |
| Pricing should be at the tier level for a given operating system and any offeror-required monitoring/management software or any other offeror-required software tools. Each order will specify the tier and operating system version required for the order. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION NO. |
| 13.6.1 and 13.6.2 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Free Move and Cost Reimbursable Move |
| SECTION TEXT |
| Delivery must be accomplished within 7 calendar days of hardware turn-over to the vendor. |
| QUESTION |
| Will the government modify this requirement to allow reasonable time for equipment relocation? CONUS to OCONUS moves or vice versa will generally take longer than seven (7) calendar days. Further, depending on the OCONUS to OCONUS locations, deliveries will likely take longer than seven (7) calendar days. |
| ANSWER |
| The move requirement has been modified to reflect 10 days. If the Government requires expedited delivery before 10 calendar days, the Government will reimburse the vendor IAW paragraph 13.6.2.1 of J-2. J-2, Requirements Document, paras 13.6 through 13.6.2.2 have been revised. J-5, PWS, paras 6.19 through 6.19.2.2 have been revised. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION NO. |
| 16.1 and 16.6 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Security and All Systems…. |
| SECTION TEXT |
| 16.1 Reference to: the Assistant Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Disposition of Unclassified DoD Computer Hard Drives, dated June 4, 2001 |
16.6 “The Government will make the determination as to whether drives can be sanitized or destroyed.”
| QUESTION |
| The Offeror believes this guidance referenced in 16.1 has been updated to reflect that scrubbing of hard drives is no longer acceptable. Offeror believes DoD updated the attachment to this memorandum as well as the guidance on the acceptability of scrubbing Hard Drives. Given the verbiage in 16.6, Offeror requests DISA state whether hard drives processed with disk scrubbing routines are returnable to the vendor (per guidance in 116.1) OR that DoD/DISA has NOT approved disk scrubbing software for Hard Drives containing controlled but Unclassified DoD information. |
| ANSWER |
| Based on Memorandum from the Inspector General, Department of Defense dated Jul 21 2009, all DOD guidance referenced in 16.1 has been updated and are current to reflect software scrubbing of hard drives is an acceptable means of disposal for unclassified media. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, Amendment 0007 |
| SECTION NAME |
| Information Assurance |
| SECTION TEXT |
| DoD and DISA are intensely aware of our adversaries' desires to exploit our networks and systems, and therefore takes system and network security very seriously. Our ability to monitor and protect systems is primarily focused on using the network capabilities to do so and consequently the majority of our efforts are network-based. With the exception of host-based security systems, virtually all other computing assets associated with security and network defense are considered to be processor assets are therefore expected to be covered under this contract. |
| QUESTION |
| Will the government provide a list of DISA-furnished software that will required to be installed on Offeror’s Provisioning Management Infrastructure servers? |
| ANSWER |
| DISA will provide HBSS and ASCC/BladeLogic agents for Management Infrastructure servers housed within a DISA facility’s floor space and on DISA’s Internet Protocol address space. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Amendment 0003 – Questions and Answers for 026 through 044 |
| SECTION NO. |
| Questions 36 and 37 |
| SECTION TEXT |
| DISA is seeking to establish rack size standards. Vendors may submit deviations to the standard rack configurations IAW Attachment 5 which must be validated and approved by DISA during evaluations. |
| QUESTION |
| DISA has allowed Offerors to propose “Rack Solutions” that do not meet DISA stated 18” (and other rack dimensions) standards. Will DISA provide “approval” of Offeror’s “Rack Solution prior to Proof of Concept? The earliest resolution of this issue by DISA is essential to limiting an Offeror’s B&P costs (Proof-of-Concept costs, specifically), should DISA deem the proposed rack solution unacceptable. Will DISA eliminate or downgrade an Offeror’s proposal if an Offeror proposes an industry standard 19” rack? |
| ANSWER |
| In J-2, Attachment 5, page 31, the specification provides define the maximum dimensions allowable; industry standard rack solutions not exceeded the specified dimensions will be evaluated. The Government will not “approve” an Offeror’s rack solution but will evaluate the rack solution as a part of the Offeror’s overall technical solution. Only offerors in the competitive range will be required to provide a Proof of Concept. Reference Section M, M002, B (3). Also, refer to Question 75. |
| DOCUMENT |
| Attachment J-2, J-5 and Attachment J-7_x86_Chipset_Pricing_Model_(final).xlsx |
| SECTION NO. |
| J-2 1.2.3.4, J-5 6.1.4.4 and SLIN 2001AA, through 2001AB and 2004AA through 2004AB |
| SECTION NAME |
| Tier Pricing |
| SECTION TEXT |
| 1.2.3.4 Tier pricing should also include virtual OE licensing for Microsoft operating systems, Redhat Linux operating systems, SUSE Linux operating systems, and switching infrastructure components. |
And
SHAPE
| QUESTION |
| What does DISA mean by “switching infrastructure components”? Do these only apply to blade based servers? Should rack mounted servers for these tiers also be equipped with infrastructure switching components? Would the government please reflect your clarifying answer by changing J-2, J-5 and any other references to “infrastructure”? |
| ANSWER |
| The correct terminology should be “Infrastructure Switching components”, which relate to any communications equipment required to support blade servers or rack mounted servers in support of virtualization capabilities. |
J-2, Requirements Document, para 1.2.3.4 and J-5, PWS, para 6.1.4.4 have been revised.
SECTION NAME
| SECTION TEXT |
| Offeror will provide Virtual Server Standard (4 ea) for NIPR, SIPR, NIPR-Back-up, & SIPR-Back-up |
| QUESTION |
| Is the government referring to VMware Vcenter Server Standard or Microsoft’s Virtual Server Standard (2005 R2)? |
| ANSWER |
| The requirement is for VMware vCenter Server Enterprise Plus. J-2, Requirements Document, para 1.2.3.2 and J-5, PWS, para 6.1.4.2 have been revised. |
SECTION NAME
| SECTION TEXT |
| Offeror will provide Virtual Server Standard (4 ea) for NIPR, SIPR, NIPR-Back-up, & SIPR-Back-up |
| QUESTION |
| Is it’s the government’s intention to secure the use of 16 licenses of Virtual Server Standard, four for NIPR, four for SIPR, four for NIPR-Back-up & four for SIPR-Back-up as well as 16 support entitlements? |
| ANSWER |
| The requirement is for one (1) NIPR production vCenter Server, one (1) NIPR back-up vCenter Server, one (1) SIPR production vCenter Server, and one (1) SIPR back-up vCenter Server. J-2, Requirements Document, para 1.2.3.2 and J-5, PWS, para 6.1.4.2 have been revised. |
SECTION NAME
| SECTION TEXT |
| 6.1.4.4 Tier pricing should also include virtual OE licensing for Microsoft operating systems, Redhat Linux operating systems, SUSE Linux operating systems, and switching infrastructure components. |
| QUESTION |
| With this amendment, the government appears to be dropping the requirement for x86 Solaris in Tiers One and Two. Is this the case? And if so, would the government please modify J-2, J-5 and other references? |
| ANSWER |
| See J-2, Requirements Document, para 1.2.3 and J-5, PWS, para 6.1.4. No, the requirement includes x86 Solaris in Tiers 1 and 2. J-2, Requirements Document, para 1.2.3.4 and J-5, PWS, para 6.1.4.4 have been revised. |
| SECTION NO. |
| Amendment - X86 W/L/L Tier Definitions |
| SECTION NAME |
| High Availability Options |
| SECTION TEXT |
| Hot pluggable CPU/memory boards Dynamic reconfiguration |
| QUESTION |
| On Tiers one and two, there are references to Hot Pluggable CPU’s. VMware vSphere 5 does not support Hot Pluggable Physical CPU’s in servers as it pertains to the ESXi Hypervisor. VMware can support hot add vCPU’s to a Virtual Machine. Was this capability intended for Virtual Machines instead of Physical Machines? |
2004AA
Tier One – Blade
2004AB
Tier Two – Blade
Defense Information Systems Agency