HC102817R0015_Amend0008_Attachment_L-1_QA_374-379.pdf

HC1028-17-R-0015

AMEND 0008

XSPCS Q&A

# Reference Questions Government Response 374 J-

6_Section_L_Amend_00 04_correction_Track_Ch anges.pdf

This document is released with Amendment 5 but titled and headed Amend 4. In addition, no final version of Section L is released with Amendment 5. Can the government please release a corrected version of Section L with changes tracks, as well as a final version?

Section L Amend 4 was purposely posted with Amend 5 to highlight items that were not marked in Amend

4. The final copy of Section L was posted in Amend 4.

375 J-

1_HC102817R0015_PW

S_Amend_0005_final

The Government states its processor requirements using Intel Broadwell nomenclature. In appendix One, X86 Tier Definitions, the Government describes the CPU Capacity/Type for each Server Tier and references PWS 5.9. It appears the Government is stating its requirements using Intel’s Broadwell processor nomenclature as the reference point when describing the number of populated sockets required for each Server Tier in order to achieve the desired minimum cores per Server Tier. Can the Government clarify whether the minimum processor core requirement can be met using higher core counts per socket and fewer sockets? A two-socket server with the appropriate Skylake processor will meet the Government’s minimum core requirements for Tiers 2, 4, and 5. As each Server Tier has two server options (Blade/Modular or Rack), can an Offeror propose a 2-socket solution for one Server type within a Tier and a 4-socket server option for the other server type within the same Tier?

Offeror’s proposal must meet the requirements defined in PWS 5.9 and PWS Appendix One X-86 Tier Definitions. Offeror’s proposal and cost model should include one hardware type per Tier.

376 Software DISA has clearly explained that the incumbent cannot use any existing hardware on the new contract, thus eliminating the appearance of given them an unfair advantage and reducing the overall risk of pre-award protest.

This however is not the case around software. There have been many questions asked, in various ways, around can the incumbent use any existing software on the new contract. The responses seem to always point to the Government’s ELA.

In order to level the playing field and alleviate concerns, can DISA clearly

In previous responses to questions73, 136, 227, 260, 263, 278, 286, 304, 306, 308, 309 and 310, the Government has been consistently clear. The offerors solution cannot utilize any existing DISA Enterprise Licensing Agreement to satisfy the requirements of this RFP.

HC1028-17-R-0015

AMEND 0008

XSPCS Q&A

articulate that the incumbent cannot use any existing software on the new proposal?

# Reference Questions Government Response

377 PWS 5.7.1

and

B-table SLIN 4002AA

The PWS states, on page 3, that "The government views the following as the current individual DIMM sizes for each chipset, the SLINs will however be comprised of two of these individual DIMMs…”, followed by a list stating 16, 32 and 64 GB DIMMS are required.

The B-Table states that SLIN 4002AA is for an 8 GB DIMM pair.

Given the contradiction in direction between the two sections of the RFP, does DISA require that SLIN 4002AA be for a pair of 16 GB DIMMS (as the PWS indicates) or a pair of 8 GB DIMMs (as the B-table currently states)?

The SLINs have been updated to align with the requirements stated in

PWS 5.8.

378 Amend 006, Contract Clauses

In Amendment 06, under Section I – Contract Clauses, on page 2, two DFARS clauses are added by reference, i.e. DFARS 252.227-7013 and DFARS 252.227- 7013. Is the second iteration of -7013 a typographical error?

In addition, on page 9 DFARS 252.227- 7013 is deleted. Is this deletion an error?

Clarification: DFARS 252.227-7013 should be included in the RFP. Due to a system error, the clause was added twice and deleted once.

379 General Based on the expected responses to forthcoming answers to questions we request that the Government provide a minimum of a two week extension from the time of release.

An amendment will be issued at a later date to advise of the response due date.