L-1_HC102817R0015_AMD_0005__Q345-373_07142017.pdf

HC1028-17-R-0015

XSPCS Q&A

AMEND 0005

# Reference Questions Government Response 345 Amendment 3 -

XSPCS PWS

Attachment J-1, APPENDIX ONE, page 1 of

3 SYSTEM

SPARC Tier Definitions

None of the SPARC updated tier definitions support the S7-2, the low-end SPARC solution with two sockets and eight (8) cores per socket.

Will the government consider modifying the tier definitions to support this product?

The government does not have a requirement S7-2 processors at this time

346 Amendment 3 -

XSPCS PWS

Attachment J-1, APPENDIX ONE, page 1 of

3 SYSTEM

SPARC Tier Definitions

The Tier 1B and Tier 3B definitions specify 16 cores per socket. The next generation SPARC 64 processor only provides 12 cores per socket (SPARC64

XII).

Will the government consider modifying the tier definitions to support the next generation SPARC64 product line?

PWS Appendix One “SPARC Tier Definitions Table” has been updated to address the concerns regarding EOL of the current offering and accommodate the next generation of hardware.

Columns Tier 1B and Tier 3B have been updated accordingly.

347 Amendment 3 -

XSPCS PWS

Attachment J-1, APPENDIX ONE, page 1 of

3 SYSTEM

SPARC Tier Definitions

The definition for Tier 3B is a four socket SPARC64. The M10-4 has been announced to have a last order date of August 31, 2017.

Will the government consider modifying the Tier 3B definition to support 2 socket SPARC64 which is the only multi-socket SPARC64 system currently available (M12-2)?

Product transition mapping includes:

•Fujitsu M10-4 server → Fujitsu SPARC M12-2 server

• Fujitsu M10-4S server → Fujitsu SPARC M12-2S server

• Fujitsu M10-4S expansion rack → Fujitsu SPARC M12-2S and Fujitsu M10- 4S expansion rack + PDUs

Key Dates:

End of Life Announcement: March 14, 2017 (servers) and April 11, 2017 (expansion racks)

PWS Appendix One “SPARC Tier Definitions Table” has been updated to address the concerns regarding EOL of the current offering and accommodate the next generation of hardware.

Column “Tier 3B” has been updated accordingly.

Last Order Date: August 31, 2017 Last Ship Date: November 30, 2017

348 J-

3_HC102817R001

5-B-1_SPARC B

Table

Performance-related computer specifications can relate to an end-user's mission. There exist many independent 3rd party performance benchmarks with which one can assess the relative performance of an individual system running a specific chipset and operating system. The most widely used such benchmarks are the ones published by the Standard Performance Evaluation Council, better known as SPEC. Virtually every computer system available today (including the Oracle SPARC systems) has been tested by SPEC, and their benchmark results are published at www.spec.org.

The SPEC benchmarks document the processing power of each system, in terms of integer performance and floating-point performance. They allow would-be purchasers and users to know the REAL- WORLD performance, on a per-core basis, and in a per-thread basis that can be attained by a given system.

There are more than one source that can provide Certified SPARC systems with the performance and reliability sought by the government. All such systems are certified by SPARC International, the actual owner of the trademarked term "SPARC", as well as the binary and instruction set standards that serve as the basis of all SPARC/Solaris servers. All SPARC Certified systems are guaranteed to run, unmodified, all program binaries that run

The tier requirements remain as stated, based on definitions found in Appendix One of the PWS. The offeror’s technical approach should provide capabilities to meet the stated technical SPARC chipset requirements described in PWS 5.1.3, 6.1.1.3 and Appendix One SPARC Tier Definitions.

under the past, current and future versions of the Solaris operating system.

At a very late date, in Amendment 003 of the XCPCS RFP, the government changed the specifications of the SPARC servers to increase the number of processor cores on a per-tier basis. This change, without any mission-related justification, or performance basis, serve to inhibit full and open competition and the removal of meaningful competition - without the JOFOC as required by the Competition In Contracting Act (41 U.S.C. 253). As the SPEC benchmarks, or virtually any other independent ones, can show, is that system performance is based not on the number of processor cores, but on the complete system design. Many other factors, including such features as larger L1, L2 and L3 cache, faster memory access paths, hardware-based instruction re-try, and system clock speed, are the true arbiters of performance measurements.

If the government re-states the performance goals of the SPARC-based servers sought, other world-class SPARC systems, with multi-decade long proven track records, might be permitted to respond. Will the government re-state the Tier definitions in terms of maximum integer and floating-point performance on a per system, or per-core basis, so that a system with more cores, or one with fewer cores, but with equivalent or greater performance and reliability could be used as the basis of a response to this RFP?

349 J-

3_HC102817R001

5-B-1_SPARC B

Table

Related to previous question: Will the government add to the RFP a requirement that solutions be able to demonstrate their 100% certified equivalence with the SPARC certification?

The offeror’s technical approach should provide capabilities to meet the stated technical SPARC chipset requirements described in PWS 5.1.3, 6.1.1.3 and Appendix one SPARC Tier Definitions.

DISA has no means to evaluate 100% certified equivalence with the SPARC certification.

350 AMEND 0004-

Question #304- Additional Documents

The Government’s response references Section M.2.1.1 Sub-factor 2 has been updated.

Please provide Section M-AMEND 0004 track changes document as it was not provided with Amend 0004 documents.

Section M has been updated and posted with this amendment as stated in response to question 304.

351 AMEND 0004-

Question #331

Please clarify whether the Government intends to use live migration of running virtual machines from one physical host server to another physical host server.

If the above is confirmed, has the Government decided on Windows Server Datacenter edition for Tiers 1 and 2 since Windows Server Standard licenses creates functionality limitations as live migration can only occur once every 90 days, commonly known as the “90 day rule.”

The offeror’s approach should provide the most cost effective overall approach to meet the needs of the RFP. The offeror’s technical approach and pricing should ensure the vendor can meet the objectives as stated in PWS 6.1.6 Virtual Environments, including support for “live migration”.

The Government has a requirement to freely move unlimited VM’s between hypervisor hosts with no limitations.

352 PWS-6.11.2-Exit Strategy

An efficient and timely transition plan can only be provided by fully understanding the exit strategy plan.

Please provide the delivered exit strategy plan from the current PCS contract.

See Question #237. Strategies are to be provided by the Contractor.

353 B-Table Please provide an updated B-Table

(HC102817R0015_B-

1_X86_Cost_Model_Amend_0004_locked _20170707)

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

The current version provided in Amendment 4 has an incorrect embedded link source and we are unable to edit.

354 HC102817R0015_

B- 1_X86_Cost_Mode l_Amend_0004_loc ked_20170707

Will the Government please unlock the Unevaluated SLINS for the X86 B-Table?

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

355 HC102817R0015_

B- 1_SPARC_Cost_M odel_Amend_003_ Locked_FINAL

Can the Government please provide an updated spreadsheet for SPARC?

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

356 B-table In receipt Amendment 4, which includes the newly updated Cost Model. However, the spreadsheet appears to be locked. We have been unable to update certain fields in this version. We respectfully request for the Government to provide an unlocked, editable version of the model. Can this be provided?

357 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #325: The Government states that they have added a No Cost Enclosure SLIN to the X-86 cost model. Is it the Government’s intent that this SLIN will be utilized in order to submit a request to the Offeror/awardee when the Government requires an enclosure be provided with an order, whenever the Government determines there is a requirement for said infrastructure?

That is correct. When the government requires additional enclosures be installed, the "No Cost Enclosure" SLIN will be used to order them.

358 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #325: Since this SLIN is at no cost, must the Offeror include the costs associated with all anticipated enclosure needs for blade technology under

Any costs associated with the fulfillment of the contract requirements that are not directly billed via available SLIN need to be included in the offeror’s "utility pricing".

the PWS be included in the price of the existing B-Table Tier 1 through 5 SLINs?

359 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #325: Can Offerors use this SLIN to charge DISA for the enclosures needed for this contract?

No, the "No Cost Enclosure" SLIN is at no cost and cannot be use for billing of services.

360 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #325: Without knowing how many enclosures are required to support the Government’s needs, where is the Offeror supposed to charge the Government for the enclosures?

The vendor will be required to determine the appropriate burdening necessary to cover potential enclosure cost. Any costs associated with the fulfillment of the contract requirements that are not directly billed via available SLIN need to be included in the "utility pricing".

361 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #344: Offeror is not aware of any 3U servers that are TAA compliant. Are non-TAA compliant servers permitted to be bid on the contract?

The offeror’s technical solution should meet the minimum requirements listed in PWS 5.9 and PWS Appendix one, X-86 Tier Definitions.

The offeror’s technical solution should provide TAA compliant technology commercially available at the time of contract award. PWS and x86 cost model references to “blade” were previously updated to “blade / modular”.

362 Amdt. 4 Q&A Reference - Q&A #318: Offeror is aware of at least two OEMs that provide servers with E7 processors. Intel E7 Xeon processors have specialized RAS (reliability, availability, and serviceability) features that are not available on lower end processors. Does DISA wish to limit servers to less capable processors?

The offeror’s approach should meet the requirements listed in PWS 5.9 and Appendix one, X-86 Tier Definitions.

363 B-tables We received Amendment 004 but it appears to be completely locked. Please send a revised version of the cost model to allow inputs to the B-table.

364 Question 304, Amendment 4

Follow up Question.

The response to question 304 states that Section M.2.1.1, Sub-factor 2 has been updated. An updated J-7, Section M was not included with Amendment 4. Please issue the updated J-7, Section M.

See response to question 350.

365 Question 341, Amendment 4.

Follow up Question.

The response to question 341 states that updated Cost Models would be issued with Amendment 0004. However, an updated SPARC Cost Model was not included with Amendment 4. Please issue the updated SPARC Cost Model.

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

366 HC102817R0015_

B- 1_X86_Cost_Mode l_Amend_0004_loc ked_20170707.xlsx

The B-table for the X86 Cost Model from Amendment 4 is locked. Please issue an updated X86 Cost Model.

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

367 Government answer to question number 337

Follow-on to Question 337, What is the percentage of Physical vs Virtual within the LIINUX server environment and what is the percentage of Physical vs Virtual with the Solaris (X86) environment?”

The DISA operational environment is dynamic and changes based on requirements from Mission partners. At the time of this response, there are approximately 2,200 Linux VOEs and approximately 1,300 Linux physical servers present in the DISA x86 environment.

At the time of this response, there are approximately 45 x86 Solaris servers with the large majority being virtuals.in the DISA

368 Amendment 3 & 4 Cost Models

The cost model for SPARC included in Amendment 3 contained X86 and NOT SPARC data. The last usable cost model was included in Amendment 2.

Additionally, the X86 cost model released in Amendment 4 is locked in such a way so as to preclude ANY data, including unit prices from being entered into the B-Table tab. As of today, we are unable to begin entering pricing information into either X86 or SPARC cost model.

Can the Government advise as to when the next Amendment will be released with corrected cost models for X86 and

SPARC?

369 J-

1_HC102817R001

5_PWS

We previously asked a question about the number of SPARC racks that are being evaluated. The Government appears to be evaluating more Racks than servers. The Rack quantity seems to be in error and is over three thousand racks. Should we anticipate an answer to our previously posed question regarding the number of racks to be priced?

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

370 B-

1_HC102817R001

5 SPARC Cost Model Spreadsheet

The Evaluated Quantities found in the last useable SPARC Cost Model Spreadsheet (Amendment 2), in SLIN 4002AK, the government is evaluating 3839 racks (24” Standard). Can the government please amend the SLIN to the correct amount?

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

371 B-

1_HC102817R001

5 SPARC Cost Model Spreadsheet

There are no Unevaluated SLINS in the Cost Model. Will the government please add Unevaluated SLINS and unlock those cells?

Updated B-Table has been posted with this amendment.

372 B-Table Unlocked Model

Since an updated B-Table

(HC102817R0015_B-

1_X86_Cost_Model_Amend_0004_locked _20170707) has not been provided yet we request an extension by 1 week once we receive the file to review and verify.

With the current version provided in Amendment 004 there is an incorrect embedded link source and we are not able to edit.

This provides an extreme challenge to provide a complete and accurate cost model as we are not able load and verify the data.

373 B-Table Please provide an updated B-Table

(HC102817R0015_B-

1_X86_Cost_Model_Amend_0004_locked _20170707)

The current version provided in Amendment 4 has an incorrect embedded link source and we are unable to edit.