L-1_HC102817R0015_Questions_301-344_Response_2017-07-07.pdf

HC1028-17-R-0015

XSPCS Q&A

AMEND 0004

# Reference Questions Government response

301 PWS 6.1.6 Subtask 1.6 – Virtual Environments and M.2.1.1 Technical/Management Rating “Green Initiatives”

Can the Government explain the distinctions in its approach to evaluating these two (2) specific PWS requirements?

Evaluation of PWS 6.1.6 Subtask

1.6 will be done as stated in Section M.2.1.1 following the criteria specified in Sub-factor 2:

Virtualization.

Evaluation of green initiatives was previously answered in response to question 014 through an earlier amendment.

302 M.2.1.1 Technical/Management Rating “Green Initiatives”

How will the Government evaluate “Best Value” of Offerors proposals responding to Government “requirements” for which there are not specific evaluation criteria?

As stated in Section M.1.1.2, the best value trade-off source selection, conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the DARS.

The best value determination is based on an integrated assessment of proposals against the evaluation criteria specified in M.2.0. Green initiatives are not included in the stated factors for evaluation.

303 M.2.1.1 Technical/Management Rating “Green Initiatives” and OTFAOC attachment under solicitation HC1028- 11-R-0104

For example, how will the Government determine the degree to which an Offeror’s solution meets DoD’s “Green” initiatives?

Per the Justification for OTFAOC, previously released under solicitation HC1028-11-R-0104, the Government stated the following “Lastly, CSD’s virtualization effort with VMware fully supports DoD’s Green IT initiatives by saving the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of over X cars, or X homes.”

There is no Justification for OTFAOC in effect for the current

RFP.

See response to question 302 above.

304 Sub-factor 2: Virtualization Will the Government better describe the criteria by which it may choose to change its standardized X86 virtualization environment of 13 years?

The evaluation criteria for Sub-factor 2: Virtualization references the minimum technical requirements by citing PWS 6.1.6.2 and PWS 6.1.7.

Neither of these references measure the actual technical requirements listed in PWS 6.1.6. How does the Government intend to determine “Best Value” for “Hypervisor, Administrative and embedded toolsets” which appear to described in PWS 6.1.6

Does the Government intend to consider any of the cost impacts detailed in paragraph 5 of the Justification for OTFAOC for VMWare, previously released under solicitation HC1028-11-R-0104 when considering “Change out costs for software is 3-7 times the initial utility cost (Gartner, Oct 07).”

As stated in Section M.1.1.2, the best value trade-off source selection, conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the DARS.

Section M.2.1.1 Sub-factor 2 has been updated to clarify the technical specifications to be evaluated by the Government.

As stated in the response to question 303 above, there is no OTFAOC in effect for the current

RFP.

# Reference Questions Government response

305 J-1_HC102817R0015_PWS Given the details the Government previously used to justify VMWARE by name, will the Government include more information in the PWS to aid Offerors in proposing viable Hypervisor and Virtualization alternatives?

See response to question 304 above

306 HC102817R0015_RFP Will the Government quantify:

1) Which VMWARE products the

Government currently uses to support both its Cloud and Capacity Service environments.

2) The license type and license quantities of the VMWARE software it is currently using.

1) VMware software currently supporting general x86 virtualization include VMware ESXi, vCenter, vCenter Appliance, vCenter Platform Services Controller (PSC), and vCenter VMware vCenter Server Appliance (VCSA). All software listed are currently version 6.0.

3) The number of VM’s currently supported by VMWARE software.

4) The number of trained personnel using VMware software that would be affected by changing to another Hypervisor.

5) The degree to which Microsoft Hyper-V or any other hypervisor is accredited for use by “…NSA accredited for virtualization of X-86 operating environments.”

(See OTFAOC, page 3 of 5, paragraph 5.b.)

Note that milCloud 2.0 was recently awarded through another solicitation and those requirements are not included in this RFP.

2) Regarding the license type and qualities for VMware, these licenses are obtained, provided and managed by the incumbent and are a part of the incumbent’s overall relationships and licensing agreements with other OEMs. DISA cannot provide nor has knowledge of the incumbent's licensing agreements.

3) The DISA operational environment is dynamic and changes based on requirements from Mission partners. At the time of this response, there are approximately 9,500 VOE present in the DISA x86 environment.

4) The core personnel supporting the current x86 virtualization infrastructure related to this RFP is approximately 25 DISA personnel. Additionally, there are an approximately 350 system administrators with limited access and capabilities to manage VOEs.

5) As stated in the response to question 303 above, there is no Justification for OTFAOC in effect for the current RFP.

307 HC102817R0015_RFP Will the Government include evaluation criteria in Section M that measure, Quantify or Qualify Offerors proposed Hypervisor solution in response to the Government’s requirement at PWS 6.1.6?

See response to question 304 above

308 L-1_HC102817R0015_QA_Amed_002

Regarding the Government’s answer to Question 136 from QA, How will the Government ensure that an Offeror “may not use existing Government Enterprise License Agreements (ELA’s) to satisfy the requirements for this solution.”?

Does DISA mean to say that it does have an “existing Government Enterprise License Agreement to satisfy requirements for this solution.”?

Is DISA implying Microsoft hypervisor / Virtualization software to which DISA has an entitlement under an JELA does not or will not meet the requirements of the subject

RFP?

Is the Government saying that no Offeror can reference/use the Microsoft JELA as part of its bid?

As stated in the response to question 136, the offeror may not use existing government Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs) to satisfy requirements for this solution.

The offeror’s solution should include all licensing for all products required in their proposed technical solution.

DISA will not provide enterprise licensing for any software to support the offeror’s technical solution.

309 L-1_HC102817R0015_QA_Amed_002

Can Government confirm the existence of a license agreement between VMware and the incumbent Processor Capacity Service provider) and/or the existence of an License Agreement between the Government and Microsoft whose scope enables or entitles the License Agreement holder to use Hypervisor and/or Virtualization software on Processor Capacity Service hardware to be delivered under this RFP?

As stated in the response to question 304 above, the license type and quantities for VMware, these licenses are obtained, provided and managed by the incumbent and are a part of the incumbent’s overall relationships and licensing agreements with other OEMs. DISA cannot provide nor has knowledge of the incumbent's licensing agreements.

As stated in the response to question 308 above, the offeror may not use existing government Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs) to satisfy requirements for this solution. DISA will not provide enterprise licensing for software to support the offeror’s technical solution.

310 L-1_HC102817R0015_QA_Amed_002

What software products are covered by any license agreement, identified in #9, above, that are germane to the Processor Capacity Service requirement?

As stated in responses to questions 304 and 308 above, software licenses utilized in the current contracts are held by the incumbent. DISA cannot provide nor has knowledge of the incumbent's licensing agreements.

311 B- 1_HC102817R0015_x86_Cost_Model_ Amend_002_locked

Does the Government intend to quantify the Total 10 and ½ year Cost of the Offeror’s proposal? The Formulae in the Evaluation Quantities Tab, Cells Q5 thru AA185 do not appear to multiply Quantities X the Monthly rate X 12 months in ear contract year to arrive at the Total Evaluated Cost. These Formulae only multiply Quantity X 1 Month at the Contract Year Monthly Rate. Will the Government advise as to the accuracy of these calculations?

See revised cost models for XSPCS Amd 0003.

312 B- 1_HC102817R0015_x86_Cost_Model_ Amend_002_locked

: It appears that the Proposed Economic Life Discount % in Column P of the B-table Tab and the Proposed Economic Life value in Column Q of the B-table Tab are not accurately reflected in the calculations of the Formulae in the Evaluation Quantities Tab, Cells Q5 thru AA185. Using $1.00/Month for SLIN 2001AA with Proposed Economic Life Discount of 10% and a Proposed Economic Life value 25 months creates a value of $5,544.00 in the “Totals” column of the Evaluation Quantities Tab. While Proposed Economic Life Discount of 0% and a Proposed Economic Life value 0 months creates a value of $5,544.00 in the “Totals” column of the Evaluation Quantities Tab.

Proposed Economic Life inputs must be proposed in annual terms, as opposed to monthly terms. See Cost Model Instructions, Paragraph 6 (b) and additional notation in revised cost models for XSPCS Amd 0003.

# Refere

Questions Government Response 313 L-

1_HC102817R0015_QA_Ame d_0002_FINAL_62317 – Question 129, plus Attachment J-5 Non-Disclosure Agreement

The government indicated in a previous answer to questions that Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) where to be submitted by personnel working on the RFP and that these are to be signed at the time of proposal submission.

However, the NDA itself refers to personnel assigned to the contract. As assignment to the contract cannot occur until after contract award (and in some cases, all the personnel who will be assigned to the contract will not be known until this time) can the government please amend this and restrict NDAs to personnel assigned to the contract – with NDAs to be signed and submitted ft t t d

The government will remove attachment J-5 requirement.

314 Due date Due to the overwhelming number of questions/responses and the complexity of the requirements set forth in the Amendment 2, we respectfully request that the proposal due date of July 12th be pushed out to allow for an extra two weeks, making the revised due date July 26th.

Due date extended to July 17, 2017.

315 Table L1 - Table of Contents Cost/Price Volume

Follow up question:

L2.3 States that each volume, except the Cost/Price Volume should have a TOC. Table L1 shows a TOC. Please clarify if a TOC is required in the Cost/Price Volume

Section L.2.3 has been updated to remove the verbiage “except the Cost/Price Volume”

316 Table L1 -Volume III Past Performance

Follow up question:

Table L1 does not include Consent Letters. L.5.1 asks for a Consent Letters. Please clarify if consent letters are required.

Table L1 has been updated to reflect completed Consent Letters.

317 J-1 5.6 Hardware Follow up question:

The government response for Q136: “How will the government eliminate the unfair advantage given the incumbent the ability to re-use software licenses from the existing Processor Capacity Services contract?” was unclear. The answer stated that the offeror may not use an ELA. The incumbent has acquired and retains thousands of software licenses for each operating system and VMWare environments. Depending on the licensing model, the incumbent may be able to transfer these licenses, at little or no cost, to the new contract as servers and blades are ordered by DISA. Competitors will be required to purchase new licenses.

Refer to response on question 308.

Recommend the government confer with software licensing experts, to include representatives of Microsoft, RedHat, and VMWare, and determine a methodology and language to include in the XSPCS solicitation to ensure the incumbent’s ability to use existing software licenses does not provide an unfair advantage.

318 PWS Section 5.9 – Processor Type, Appendix One x86 Tier Definitions

Follow up question:

In our research, we found only one OEM that can provide an x86 4-socket Blade server utilizing Intel E7 series processors. The requirement as stated provides a lock-out specification to other offerors both severely limiting competition and creating unfair competitive advantage. To allow for fair and increase competition and better value to the Government, please confirm a Blade server solution with 4 x E5 series processors and 56 cores or greater is acceptable to meet the Tier 5 requirements. This approach was acceptable and used on the current PCS contract, where the incumbent’s solution for the Tier 5 requirement was the same as the Tier 2 solution.

PWS Section 5.9 has been updated to reflect > E5 4600 v3/v4.

319 PWS 5.9 & B-

1_HC1028817R0015_X86_

Cost_Model_Amend_002_L ocked-Tier 5 Blade

Follow up question:

In reviewing the PWS and Cost Model there is a conflict in regard to the Tier 5-Blade processor requirement.

The example in the B Table for SLIN 2001AE states an E5-4620v3 processor rather than the E7 4800 v3/V4 processor stated in PWS 5.9

Please confirm the Government’s requirement is for an E5 processor for the Tier 5-Blade.

PWS Section 5.9 has been updated to reflect > E5 4600 v3/v4.

Vendor’s solution should meet the solutions requirements listed in the PWS. Cost model examples are for reference only.

320 PWS 5.9 & B-

1_HC1028817R0015_X86_

Cost_Model_Amend_002_L ocked-Tier 5 Blade

Follow up question:

Due to overheating the E7 processor creates it is not included in Blade form-factors, rather only in the rack mounted servers that have proper airflow, space and heatsinks to dissipate the heat by meeting the thermal and mechanical design recommendations from Intel.

Recommend revising the requirement to an E5 processor to allow for the most efficient and standard industry technology offering.

PWS Section 5.9 has been updated to reflect > E5 4600 v3/v4.

321 PWS, 6.1.6.4

Follow up question:

Please confirm that the Government will provide Top of Rack switches for the x86 platforms, along with switches for the systems management network?

The Government will provide the out of band (OOB) Network switching hardware. As stated in the PWS 6.1.6.4, the vendors solution, “must be compatible with the government’s network switching infrastructure.

322 J-1 6.17.2 Subtask 17.2 Call Order Management System

Follow up question:

The Government response for Q173 is unclear. The Government requires the contractor to ‘create” a call order system that has specific data elements identified in Appendix 5 of the PWS. Subtask 17.2 provides specific data requirements, approvals and review workflow, and reporting. Only the incumbent has a system in use that matches DISA’s requirements exactly. New offerors must create a system to meet DISA’s requirements. There may be expense in software licensing, software maintenance, consulting labor hours to create or modify an asset management system to conform to DISA’s requirements. Since the incumbent’s system costs have been recovered though the PCS1 contract, the use of the existing PCS1 Automated Call Orders Systems for this procurement provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent. Request that the Government identify a methodology and language in this solicitation to ensure the incumbent does not carry forward the system developed and paid for under the 2012 PCS contract, providing an unfair competitive advantage for the XSPCS contract bid.

Response to Q173 should have stated contractor is required to “provide” a call order system (vice “create”). Data elements outlined in Appendix 5 of the PWS are the minimum requirements of the Government.

If an offeror has an existing system which provides the elements requested, no additional development would be required. There is no reasonable action the Government can take to mitigate the perceived inherent advantage of the incumbent.

323 Question #105-J-1: 6.20 Task 20 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)

Follow up question:

The Government stated, “no template will be provided. The intent is for the offerors to provide the SCRM plan they already have in place for their companies.”

If the Government’s intent is for the offeror to provide the SCRM plan they already have in place, we request that the Government remove the requirement for the plan to address the security controls as applicable to the contract in accordance with NIST Special Publication (SP)

The Government will remove the following sentence from paragraph L.7.0 Volume V - Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Volume

"The Government's review of the SCRM evaluation factor will include an assessment of an offeror's understanding of and ability to provide an organization-wide SCRM plan which identifies and analyzes the

800-53 and Committee on National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253 Appendix D.

risk of failure points within the supply chain and how the offeror is prepared to deal with those risks and execute in accordance with Committee on National Security Systems (CNSSI) 1253 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53."

324 J1: 9.4.1

Follow up question:

The addition of the statement “based on the number of days in each month” and striking of “with 30 days per” leads to the assumption that there is prorating involved in the monthly billing. This does not align with 9.4.1.1 (15th of the Month Rule). Would DISA please provide more detail regarding what invoicing would be effected by the number of days in each month or re-write this with no reference to either 30 days per month or number of days per month?

PWS Section 9.4.1 has been updated read “The Contractor will employ a monthly billing cycle with 28/29/30/31 days per month”.

325 Enclosure Follow up question:

Amendment 2 Q&A question 285 referenced details about how the Government intends to order enclosures for this capacity services requirement. Enclosures are not identified in the example/description for any of the Tiered Server SLINS, and there is no mechanism to order them as a separate SLIN in the additional HW category. The provided response stated: “The offeror’s technical solution and SLIN structure should capture all anticipated costs associated with their technical proposal within the current SLIN structure. No additional SLINS will be added to charge for any costs associated with enclosures.” Does the Government intend to manage the placement of enclosures and internal utilization or have the vendor manage all aspects of placement of enclosures and provide for maximum utilization of slots within the enclosure population? If the Government will control the quantity of enclosures obtained in support of this contract, a mechanism for ordering of enclosures, we request that a “no-cost” process SLIN be added to the b-table.

The X-86 Cost Model has been updated to include a No Cost Enclosure SLIN.

326 HC1028817R0015_X86_Co st_Model_Amend_002_Loc ked-Evaluation Quantities Tab

Follow up question:

In columns Q through AA of the Evaluation Quantities tab the formulas do not annualize.

The current formula returns monthly cost but should show annual cost, thus the expected TCO calculates to 1/12 of the actual TCO.

Request a revised spreadsheet with a revised formula.

Refer to response on questions 311 and 312.

327 J-5 Non-Disclosure Agreement

Follow up question:

The Government requests NDA’s for all personnel who worked on the proposal. In a large company, this could apply to a large number of people. Would the Government please clarify a level of personnel involvement so as not to create an unnecessary burden on offerors?

In what Volume and where should NDA’s be included?

The government will remove attachment J-5 requirement.

328 PWS Appendix 1 Follow up to DISA’s response to Question 52: Response; PWS Appendix 1: x86 Tier Definitions has been updated to “Memory ordered separately”.

Follow on Question: There were 2 changes to memory requirements. First, memory is to be ordered separately and levels have been bumped. The only modification to the evaluation quantities was a shift from Level 2 to Level, presumably due to leveling. There appears to be no increase in quantities associated with the need to purchase increased memory SLINS because Tier 1 and Tier 2 no longer allow memory to be part of the configuration.

Will there be an update to the evaluation quantities in the b-tables to reflect memory SLIN orders for Tiers 1 & 2?

X-86 Cost Model memory quantities have been updated.

329 J-3 Follow up to DISA’s response to Question 116: Response; DISA will guarantee 12 months of vendor invoicing, regardless of DISA need, for any SLIN ordered with a 12 month commitment.

Follow on Question: What is the intent of DISA once the 12 month commitment term expires?

The Government has the option to order either the 12 month SLIN or a monthly SLIN based on its need at that time.

Will additional 12 month commitments be requested, and if not requested will SLIN price be converted to the regular monthly SLIN price?

330 B-Table Would the Government please clarify how you intend to evaluate the hypervisor quantity on row 40 and 79 of the B-table Evaluation Quantity?

Please clarify if additional to licenses will be necessary to create the virtualization platform for Tier 1 and Tier 2, or is it the aggregate cost to provide the virtualization platform, or is it a single socket license that will be used for another reason?

The hypervisor license should be included in SLINs for all Tier One and Tier Two hardware orders.

The separate Hypervisor SLIN(s) are to be utilized for orders of a hypervisor license without accompanying hardware

PWS Appendix One for x86 and the cost model descriptions/examples have been updated.

331 J-1 5.6 Hardware Does the Government intend to use VMotion between physical hosts?

If so, then has the Government decided on Windows Server Datacenter edition for tiers 1 and 2?

The term vMotion is specific terminology for VMware products. The offeror’s technical solution for x86 Virtual environments should address the requirements specified in PWS

6.1.6 Subtask 1.6, including

“Server hardware and OS virtualization embedded management (live migration and basic automation of administrative management functions)”

The offeror’s technical solution will specify the appropriate Windows licensing approach as specific in PWS 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.2.

# Reference Questions Government Response

332 L-

1_HC102817R0015_QA_A

med_0002_FINAL_62317 – Question 69. Amendment 2, Table L.1, and Amendment 2, L.5.1

The government indicated in a previous answer to questions that a Summary Page with a one page limit was added to the Past Performance Volume. Table L.1 appear to indicate that this page limit is per past performance effort – however it also refers to a Summary Page (as

To clarify: there is only one volume. All past performance efforts to be submitted for review are to be included in the one volume and there is one summary page for the volume.

opposed to pages) indicating that this should be one Summary Page per Past Performance volume. Section L.5.1 also seems to indicate that there is one Summary Page per Past Performance Volume. Can the government please verify that this is the case and that one Summary Page is required per Past Performance volume.

# Reference Questions Government Response 333 PWS 6.1.6 Subtask 1.6 –

Virtual Environments Would DISA please expand on the scope of the virtualization support requested for DISA VDI?

PWS 6.1.6 has been updated and the VDI reference has been removed.

334 PWS 6.3.2 Subtask 3.2 Will DISA create a separate network for server provisioning or is the vendor required to design this network?

DISA’s Out of Band (OOB) network can be utilized for the vendor’s network provisioning requirements.

335 PWS 6.7.2 Subtask 7.2 Since the vendor will be accessing the management network (residing at DISA) through the DISA OOB which requires a CAC, does this fulfill the CAC requirement?

As stated in PWS 6.1.1.4, “Contractor provided infrastructure will be managed and maintained by the Contractor, and will be subject to Risk Management Framework (RMF) accreditation processes as well as relevant DISA STIG and security policies”

336 PWS 6.7.2 Subtask 7.2 Will DISA provide Domain Controller Access to the vendor in order to standup the deployment and management environment?

As stated in PWS 6.1.1.4, the vendor’s solution should “provide a management infrastructure solution that includes provisioning capabilities, hardware diagnostics, hardware monitoring, event logging, image repositories or additional back office processes required to reside in a DISA environment to support the Contractor’s technical solution”

337 PWS 6.1.6 Subtask 1.6 – Virtual Environments

What is the percentage of Physical vs. Virtual within their Windows server environment as it stands today?

The DISA operational environment is dynamic and changes based on requirements from Mission partners. At the time of this response, there are approximately 3,300 Windows VOEs and approximately 2,270 Windows physical servers present in the DISA x86 environment.

338 L.6.3 Volume Organization The numbering and instructions for this section are inconsistent. To provide the Government with an appropriate response, would the Government please reorganize this section?

L.6.3 Volume Organization has been updated to “L.6.4 Volume Organization.”

339 L.6.3 Volume Organization

And

L.6.3 Pricing of Technological Advances

Is it the Government’s intention to have both “Volume Organization” and “Pricing of Technological Advances” sharing the same section number? If not, will the Government please issue a revised Section L with revised section numbers?

Refer to response for question 337.

340 L.2.3 Table of Contents The instructions, “Each volume, except the Cost/Price Volume IV, shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume” conflict with the instructions in Table L.1. Can the Government please clarify?

Refer to response for question 315.

341 HC102817R0015_B-

1_SPARC_Cost_Model_Am end_003_Locked_FINAL_( 2)

And

HC102817R0015_B-

1_X86_Cost_Model_Amend _003_Locked_FINAL

The contents contained both SPARC and X86 B- Tables are identical. Can the Government please issue revised B-Tables that differentiate the two?

Updated Cost Models are being issued with Amend 0004.

# Reference Questions Government Response

342 Extension Request We respectfully request that the government consider extending the subject proposal for at least another 2 weeks to facilitate all offerors being able to optimize their solution for the government and better ensure true best value solutions are presented in response to the solicitation. This would better enable us to submit a compliant and defendable proposal.

Due date extended to July 17, 2017.

343 Due date Since answers that were submitted were not answered, please extend submission date to July 26, 2017.

Due date extended to July 17, 2017.

344 E7 Blade The manufacturer will soon be releasing a 3U 4-socket rack server with Intel’s next generation processors that will provide significantly better performance and scalability than the E7 solution.

This platform will also be much less expensive than a 3U Blade, which requires a dedicated chassis and internal network switches.

Since the current form factor for E7 series Blades is 3U, will the gov’t consider removing the Tier 5 requirement for E7 series Blade servers?

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 technology commercially available at the time of contract award.

Minimum E7 requirement was removed in previous amendment.