HC102817R0155_Questions_5-10_final.pdf

HC1028-17-R-0155

X-86 Q&A

AMEND 0002

Attachment L-1 Question & Answer Template

RFP# HC1028-17-R-0155 (MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WORD FORMAT)

# Reference Questions Government Response 5 General We are interested in pursuing the recently released

(August 29, 2017) RFP HC1028-17-R-0155, however there seems to be an error in the due date.

It currently shows a due date of September 12, 2017.

We are confused how a RFP with a dozen or so attachments, approximately 300 pages of text and a maximum amount of over $323 million can have a due date of 14 days.

We request an immediate extension of 30 days.

This is not a new requirement.

As stated on FBO:

This requirement was previously apart of RFP HC1028-17-R-0015.

Per amendment 0008 to HC1028-17- R-0015 the requirement was split.

All actions related to the previous RFP also referred to as XSPCS up until Amendment 0008 support both RFPs. Effective the issuance of this RFP all correspondence related to X- 86 should reflect the new RFP.

The original RFP was posted May 8, 2017. As such, the proposal due date stands as stated, September 12, 2017.

6 General Our research shows that HP is the current incumbent.

Please confirm this is true.

HP is the incumbent provider for X- 86 on the current Capacity Services contract.

7 General Is the short turnaround time being used to eliminate competition in order to award this to the current incumbent?

See response to question 5 above.

8 General It doesn’t appear feasible that anyone other than the incumbent can respond to this detailed and complex request in the stated timeframe.

We request an extension of 30 days.

See response to question 5 above.

9 PWS_Final- Section 5.6

Please revise section 5.6 to include both hardware and software.

The incumbent’s ability to reuse licenses poses an unfair advantage to all other competitors.

This question specifically applies to vendor provided software, as it is clear that the DISA ELAs were not used in the past nor be used in the future.

The incumbent’s ability to reuse licenses does not create an unfair competitive advantage. PWS 5.6 will remain as currently written.

HC1028-17-R-0155

X-86 Q&A

AMEND 0002

# Reference Questions Government Response

10 Reference PWS_Final- Section 5.6

It is clear from the responses that the DISA ELA is not available for use on this contract.

However, the previous questions asked specifically revolved around re-use of non-DISA ELA licenses.

Should the incumbent be allowed to utilize perpetual licenses that they have already purchased for use on PCS servers, it will create an unfair advantage to all other bidders who will be required to purchase new licenses.

Please confirm that all non DISA ELA licenses in use on the current program or other environments cannot be re-used on the XPCS contract.

The incumbent’s ability to reuse licenses does not create an unfair competitive advantage. The PWS does not prohibit any offeror from re-using licenses it already possesses so long as the licenses meet the PWS requirements. The PWS does not require offerors to purchase new licenses for this contract.

Attachment L-1 Question & Answer Template