Questions and Answers 1-75

UNCLASSIFIED

RFP# HM0177-11-R-0021

Program Name: Unclassified Remote Hosted Desktop

Q&As

UNCLASSIFIED 1 | Page

Questions and Answers (1 – 75):

1) Q: Is the 31 May due date a hard due date or can an extension be requested?

A: The proposal due date has been extended to June 6, 2011.

2) Q: Can you give me a target dates for release of the:

a. Managed Data Center Services (MDCS) pilot

b. User-Facing Capability (UFC) pilot

c. Deployed Services (DS) pilot

A: The target dates for these pilots are acquisition sensitive. However, please keep a look out on the Acquisition Resource Centers (ARC) and FedBizOpps websites for these upcoming potential releases.

3) Q: Will the final RFP be released on the C-WAN for these efforts?

A: The final RFP for the URHD pilot was released on May 10, 2011.

4) Q: Will NGA have an industry day/bidders conference for these efforts?

A: Not for this RFP effort. It is still to be decided on whether or not to hold an industry day/bidders conference for the other pilot efforts.

5) Q: Is the RFP really due on May 31 st

– since it is a DRAFT and questions are not due until

May 23?

A: The proposal due date has been extended to June 6, 2011 and the questions deadline is

June 1, 2011.

6) Q: What is the relationship of the pilots (results, metrics, lessons-learned) with the ultimate

ITEMS procurement? It appears pilots will be underway when the RFP for ITEMS is projected to be released.

UNCLASSIFIED 2 | Page

A: As stated in the SOW, the pilots are a risk-reduction effort to identify technical and policy issues that will need to be resolved prior to an enterprise-level implementation decision. The results of the pilot could potentially inform the nature, scope and requirements for the overall

ITEMS effort.

7) Q: Will there be any OCI for the Winners of Pilots – and the ultimate ITEMS RFP?

A: At this time, the Government has only assessed OCI issues as they relate to this pilot – the

URHD pilot. To mitigate an OCI between the URHD pilot and the ITEMS RFP, the

Government will use the data and information gathered in the course of this pilot to determine the feasibility of SaaS, Computing to Go Service Models, and Public/Private

Cloud Computing for NGA. If this proof of concept is successful, NGA intends to procure these services agency-wide through a competitive acquisition. As such, pursuant to DFARS

227.7202-1(c)(1), the Service Provider is required to provide deliverables detailing changes to or within the Government’s hardware and software systems with Government Purpose

Rights, as defined in DFARS Clause 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014. This will enable

NGA to provide potential vendors in the follow-on competitive procurement with the information necessary for modifying the Government system to enable these services through any commercial contractor. If the offeror wishes to assert more restrictive rights than

Government Purpose Rights in any deliverable or part thereof, it shall do so in accordance with DFARS Clause 252.227-7017. Any Government requests to validate asserted restrictions will be done in accordance with the procedures in DFARS Clause 252.227-7019.

Again, no OCI determinations have been made regarding the remaining three proposed pilots and the ITEMS RFP.

8) Q: Will the pilots be single award?

A: There will be a single award for the URHD pilot effort. The decision for a single or multiple awards for the other pilots is still to be determined.

9) Q: Solicitation Number HM017711R0021, ITEMS – Unclassified Remote Hosted Desktop, shows as a draft RFP, however, there is a response due date of May 31, 2011. Can you please confirm whether this is truly a draft solicitation or if the government is expecting proposals by May 31, 2011?

A: The proposal due date has been extended to June 6, 2011

UNCLASSIFIED 3 | Page

10) Q: In 6.3.9 of the SOW mentions necessary security clearances to gain access to facilities, networks, and equipment. Is that equipment that is resident at NGA sites? If so, what level of security is going to required? If not, what are the circumstances that would require that and, again, at what level of security?

A: Section 6.3.9 of the SOW, refers to the contractor personnel accessing the URHD environment. In other words, the contractor hosting and provisioning the URHD must have a mechanism to ensure the personnel given access to the operations area and equipment have sufficiently vetted credentials in accordance with the security requirements and referenced security-related documents contained in the SOW. Per the SOW and CONOPS, the URHD equipment is at the contractor’s URHD hosting location. We do not foresee URHD contractor personnel entering NGA sites unless an unexpected situation arises, and the

ITEMS Program Management Office would make arrangements for escorted access in the event it became necessary.

11) Q: Is there a requirement for the contractor personnel conducting this pilot be seated at or near (by some distance) an NGA site such as the PMO?

A: No.

12) Q: While there is mention of a thumb drive being a computing on the go device option, there appears to be no scenario where a thumb drive is mentioned as a device. Please confirm what the status of the thumb drive as a device is.

A: Section 6.2.4 of the SOW contains the requirement to interact with a local storage device.

13) Q: Is there a requirement that the proposer be an ISP commercially? One could read the requirements as only needing expertise in ISP and cloud computing operations to be on the team.

A: The proposer must present a solution that addresses the totality of the SOW in a manner that is in compliance with the referenced directives, policies and procedures. Past experience is a factor in the evaluation as described in the main RFP package.

UNCLASSIFIED 4 | Page

14) Q: Proposals are due in 15 working days and yet the final draft has not been issued. Is this still a reasonable estimate?

A: The proposal due date has been extended to June 6, 2011

15) Q: Would NGA consider holding a bidders conference prior to the Pilot to provide an interactive dialog on the ITEMS program and how this Pilot fits into their overarching acquisition strategy?

A: The decision to hold a bidders conference to discuss the overall ITEMS program and the

Pilots is still to be determined.

16) Q: Are there constraints on how many pilots each service provider can provide/be awarded?

A: At this time, the Government believes there should be no OCI conflicts among the URHD pilot and the remaining proposed pilots which would limit the number of awards a contractor could receive. However, as the Government refines its requirements on the remaining pilots, it may determine a conflict or conflicts exist, at which time the Government would alert the affected parties.

17) Q: Is the expectation of capacity management at commodity price that a service catalog is to be provided as part of the response/pilot?

A: The proposed contents of the Service Catalog (to be formally delivered as CDRL #A003 as part of the contract) should be provided as part of the response to allow an accurate assessment of whether or not the requirements in Section 6 inclusive are actually met within the proposed solution architecture.

18) Q: Are voice and email services on SBU expected to be provided as part of a public cloud or connect to existing NGA voice and email services?

A: Requirements for voice services are not in the SOW. Per section 6.2.5 of the SOW, the

Service Provider shall provision a mail server within the URHD environment. E-mail services should reflect industry standard capabilities, in that users can send and receive e-mails from other e-mail clients and servers. Whether NGA exercises exchanges between existing NGA e-mail services or not, and in what manner with what types of data allowed, will be addressed by Section 2.4 in the URHD CONOPS.

UNCLASSIFIED 5 | Page

19) Q: Are there any size and access limits to the cloud service provided in the pilot?

A: Section 6.2.5 of the SOW provides the minimum client account capacities for data storage. Section 6.2.7 outlines what parameters must be accounted for in the Service Level

Agreement. Bidders should identify what will be delivered for the proposed price.

Furthermore, as defined in SOW Section 2.6.8, this solution must be extensible to the full enterprise need.

20) Q: What is NGA’s definition of a Public cloud?

A: By Public Cloud, per SOW Section 1.3, we mean: “NGA shall purchase usage rights for the Service Provider’s commodity infrastructure and services in a computing environment.

NGA’s user and application data may or may not be intermingled with other customer’s data in the Service Provider’s enterprise infrastructure – the decision to do so is based on variables such as maximizing utilization, satisfying security requirements, minimizing overhead and operating costs, system availability, reliability, back-up/recovery, etc. The decision is left to the Service Provider.” The degree to which NGA services and data share infrastructure with other customers, and who those other customers are, is a decision to be made by the Service Provider so long as the solution meets the requirements and policies specified in the SOW.

21) Q: Do all components of the Public cloud need to be physically hosted in the US?

A: All components of the URHD as provisioned by the Service Provider must be physically hosted in the US as defined in Section 6.3.9 of the SOW.

22) Q: Are there any restrictions on non-US citizens having access to the cloud or providing administrative support to the cloud infrastructure?

A: Per section 6.3.9 of the SOW, all personnel assigned to this effort must have US citizenship, and meet the access requirements as defined by the SOW and referenced documents.

UNCLASSIFIED 6 | Page

23) Q: Reference Page 15 of the Draft SOW 6.3.3, require “Secure Communications” does this require NSA approved Type 1 encryption, or please define the acceptable level of data and communication encryption.

A: Encryption must be equivalent and compatible to the current method of individually issued PKI on a CAC card for e-mail signing and encryption. The current solution uses industry-standard methods for browser and application sessions between clients and hosts

(for example, Defense Connect Online, Army Knowledge Online, connections to .mil websites, etc.).

24) Q: Instruction to Offerors, 7.2 Proposal Submission Instructions, IV Volume Format and

Content, 4.0 Volume 4 – Cost/Price Information – states that the Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINS) are provided on pages 1-6 of this RFP. This was not included in the file provided; can the government provide these pages?

A: The SF-1449 was provided as part of the initial RFP release. This SF-1449 contains pages

1 – 6 of the RFP as well as contains the CLIN structure. The SF-1449 requires no additional changes and is in its FINAL form.

25) Q: The original DRFP requested that questions be submitted by May 25, 2011. With the release of the FRFP the customer has extended the questions to June 1. The proposal submissions are due five days later on the 6 th of June. With consideration to the reduction of time to ask questions on the DRFP, to influence the FRFP requirements and the short time between questions submitted and the proposal submission; will the customer consider an extension to the June 6 submittal date to enable industry concern incorporation into the final proposal submissions?

A: The due date for the proposal submissions shall remain at June 6, 2011 5:00 PM Eastern

Daylight Savings Time and the question submittal date shall remain at June 1, 2011 5:00 PM

Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

26) Q: On page 61 of the SF 30 Continuation section 3.2 it states "Each Offeror (to include their top two (2) Sub-Contractors as determined by percentage of proposed total contract value in the cost volume) shall complete and submit summaries, as described below, for up to ten (10) projects from the Master Projects." Are the summaries submitted the only ones that have to meet the evaluation criteria stated on page 67 section 2.3 under Technical performance on

UNCLASSIFIED 7 | Page previous contracts and Cost control performance on previous contracts or does the entire

Master Projects List need to meet this criteria?

A: The entire Master Projects List needs to meet the criteria as stated on page 67 under

Section 2.3 Area 3 Past Performance.

27) Q: Does NGA envision Multiple Awards for the URHD Pilot?

A: There will be a single award for the URHD pilot effort. The decision for a single or multiple awards for the other pilots is still to be determined.

28) Q: Reference: SF 1449, items 0003, 0004, 0005. Question: Does the customer intend to exercise the base options at contract award?

A: The decision on whether to exercise CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0005 at contract award is to be determined.

29) Q: Reference: SF 1449, item 0004, and SOW Paragraph 6.2.9 page 14. This documentation maps the SOW requirements to the Base Period Option CLINs . Question: Should SOW

Paragraph 6.2.9 be divided into 6.2.9 A and B to better map to the CLINs [i.e. SOW

Paragraph 6.2.9A Public Cloud Base (CLINs0001, 0101, 0201) addressing the Public Cloud for the Pilot and SOW Paragraph 6.2.9B Option (CLINs 0004, 0104, 0204) addressing the

Private Cloud]?

A: SOW Section 6.2.9 is intended to only deal with the option for a Private Cloud for some or all of the services in the URHD. The selection of title “Private Cloud vs Public Cloud” was simply meant to clarify that this particular requirement was a departure from the deployment model that forms part of the basic going-in assumptions for the SOW. It could have been titled “Private Cloud Option” and been equally correct in intent.

30) Reference: SF 1449, item 0003, SOW 6.2.10 page 14. This documentation maps the SOW requirements to the Base Period Option CLINs . Question: Should SOW Paragraph 6.2.10 be divided into 6.2.10 A and B to better map to the CLINs [i.e. SOW 6.2.10A Software

License Base (CLINs0001, 0101, 0201) addressing the Service- provider licenses from

UNCLASSIFIED 8 | Page

Tables 1 and 2 and SOW 6.2.10B Option (CLINs 003,0103,0203) addressing the "NON-standard Software" line item]?

A: SOW Section 6.2.10 is intended delineate the mechanisms for software licensing of the various applications and capabilities within the URHD. NGA desires an option for obtaining support for non-standard software options that NGA may desire to have hosted within the

URHD, but are not contained within the list of services / capabilities in Tables 1 and 2. NGA cannot specify these services /capabilities in greater detail at this time, so the optional CLINs are established to account for this and provide the proposers with a mechanism to scope and bid this support outside the basic URHD architecture covering all the baseline requirements in Section 6 inclusive.

31) Q: Reference: RFP paragraphs: Para 4.0g, page 69 and SOW 6.4.4-6.4.5 page 18-19

Question: Is there a location of the demo planned on 29 July 11 to 5 Aug 11, that the

Government would want contractors to use for Travel quoting purposes (CLIN 2) ?

A: The travel requirement will be deleted in an updated SOW. The updated SOW will posted to FedBizOpps under Amendment 02. Amendment 02 will be posted as soon as possible to

FedBizOpps.

32) Q: RFP 7.2, section IV, 1.1.5 (b) The RFP states: “The Offeror shall meet or exceed the current statutory rates set by Congress for Small Businesses.” It then states “Detailed explanations shall also be provided when the percentages fall short of the goals specified in the Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Approach.” Does this mean we would still be compliant if we don’t meet the goals as long as we provide explanations or are we to meet the goals in order to be compliant?

A: Amendment 02 will change the language from “The Offeror shall meet or exceed the current statutory rates set by Congress for Small Businesses” To “The Offeror should meet or exceed the current statutory rates set by Congress for Small Business. Detailed explanations shall also be provided when the percentages fall short of the goals specified in the Small

Business Participation Plan Evaluation Approach.” The government will determine on a case by case basis if the explanations provided will be sufficient enough when the percentages fall short of the rate set by Congress for Small Businesses.

UNCLASSIFIED 9 | Page

33) Q: SOW 6.3.2 How does the government propose to make CAC card authentication data available for use in two-factor authentication?

A: If CAC cards are used in the contractors proposed solution, the service provider will be given sufficient information by the Government PMO to enable the IDAM solution to identify and process the PKIs for the users selected to have accounts in the URHD environment.

34) Q: RFP 3.4, paras 1-4 Does the government expect commercial contractor personnel to comply with DoD 8570 training and qualification standards? Will the government provide the positions and qualifications matrix ASAP so DoD 8570 training and certification requirements can be scheduled to comply with the government’s certification requirements?

(RFP 3.4 para 1-4)

A: The contractor is required to comply with clause NGA: 5X52.239-9000 Information

Assurance (IA) Workforce Improvement Program Implementation (APR 2010). The requirements in this clause apply to all contractors performing information assurance functions IAW DoD 8570.0-M, Appendix 1, reference 8, Information Assurance Workforce

Improvement Program. The contractor shall coordinate with the COR to identify the positions that must complete the training and certification requirements as soon as possible after the start of the contract.

35) Q: CONOPS, Page 25 Page 25 of the CONOPS shows 52.222-51 an Exemption from

Application of the Service Contract Act. However, Page 26 of the CONOPS shows that

52.222-41 Service Contract Act of 1965 is included. Please clarify whether the Service

Contract Act will be included in the ITEMS contract.

A: I assume you mean Page 25 and Page 26 of the Draft RFP and not the CONOPS. The

Service Contract Act does not apply to the type of work required under the ITEMS URHD

SOW and will not be included as part of the ITEMS - URHD contract. However, it is up to your discretion if you want to include this clause as part a subcontractor contract.

UNCLASSIFIED 10 | Page

36) Q: SF 1449 The exact Period of Performance is not indicated in the In the RFP. It states

“starting in FY2011 with two 6-month options.” What specific PoP should we use to complete the subcontracting plan?

A: The periods of performance durations are specified in each of the CLINs on the SF-1449.

The exact dates for the periods of performance will be specified at time of award.

37) Q: RFP 7.2 I, 1.6 The RFP states: “Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9 Alt III

(July 2010). This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation

Approach information required below, which applies to both large and small businesses. An approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract.” The small business subcontracting plan is required to be submitted but is not requested in the proposal submission. What means and date of submission is desired for the small business subcontracting plan.

A: The small business subcontracting plan is required to be submitted at the same time as the overall proposal submission.

38) Q: Do you know who the original computer manufacturer is for the current system?

A: There are multiple vendors and a diversity of components.

39) Q: With regards to this solicitation, we are an interested contractor who manufactures modular, containerized data centers and communication facilities. Specifically, the MDCS pilot seemed to be a potential candidate for our solutions. Can you let me know if this is being looked at or not?

A: This effort is not dealing with the MDCS pilot. Information on it was simply provided as background information for the overall effort.

UNCLASSIFIED 11 | Page

40) Q: How many hard copies and soft copies are required to be submitted for each Volume?

A: Proposals shall be submitted to scott.l.stallsmith@nga.mil . Hard copies are not required nor are multiple soft copies required. An email with the proposal (inclusive of all the volumes) to the above address is all that is required.

41) Q: Reference RFP# HM0177-11-R-0021, Page 55, Section 7.2 (Proposal Instructions), I.

(General Instructions), 1.3 (Proposal Submission Instructions): Is submission in Adobe

Portable Document Format (PDF) acceptable?

A: Yes submission of the proposal in PDF is acceptable. However, the government would prefer the Cost Volume to be in Microsoft Excel and Word compatible formats where applicable.

42) Q: As follow-up to the Government’s response to URHD question 7, please confirm that

FAR 9.505-2(a)(3) is applicable to the ITEMS URHD pilot effort and that the successful offeror for this pilot will not be precluded from any ITEMS URHD follow-on effort.

A: At this time the Government does not foresee the winner of the ITEMS URHD pilot being precluded from a potential ITEMS URHD follow-on effort.

43) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, IV, 4.0, f) Should subcontractors unsanitized price proposals be submitted via e-mail to the contracting officer?

A: Yes, the subcontractor’s unsanitized price proposals should be directly submitted via email to the contracting officer.

44) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, IV, 4.0, b) The cost volume requirements format states that we should provide pricing data for each service outlined in the SOW. Does each application service listed in the service table 1 of the SOW need to be priced separately (including labor, licensing and maintenance) or can the licensing be priced separately and labor and other costs be priced together as outlined in SOW paragraph 6.1?

A: Please see Section 4.0 of the RFP for pricing instructions. Provide pricing data for each service, requirement, and deliverable outlined in the SOW as well as for each of the CLINs specified in the SF-1449.

mailto:scott.l.stallsmith@nga.mil

UNCLASSIFIED 12 | Page

45) Q: SF 30 paragraph 2 The required sections for the proposal technical volume. Paragraph 1

Service Delivery lists services, technical capabilities, security capabilities and program management sections as outlined in the SOW fully encompassing all required technical details. Paragraphs 2-5 list Service Support, Service provisioning, Service operations, and

Service Accessibility, which are already covered under the subsections in paragraph 1 as it relates to the SOW. If this is correct, then that will require a repeat of section 1 to cover sections 2-5 in the Technical Volume response

A: The Government is looking into this and will provide an answer shortly.

46) Q: What PMO within NGA will support ITEMS?

A: The E directorate within NGA will be the cognizant directorate overseeing the URHD implementation. In particular, the ITEMS PMO will be administering the URHD pilot.

47) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, I, 1.6 What volume should the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan be submitted in?

A: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan can be submitted as part of Volume 1 –

Executive Summary as an appendix. There are no page restrictions for the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

48) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, I, 1.9 What volume should the ORCA information or completed Offeror Representations and Certifications be submitted in?

A: The ORCA information / Offeror Representations and Certifications should be submitted as part of Volume 1 – Executive Summary as an appendix. There are no page restrictions for the ORCA / Offeror Representations and Certifications.

49) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, IV, 1.1.5 (b)(1) and (b)(2) Paragraph (b)(1) requires Offeror to meet or exceed the current statutory rates set by Congress which are measured as a percentage of total subcontracted dollars. Paragraph (b)(2) states that all percentages should use TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline. Should prime contractors include both measurements (% of total subcontracted dollars and total contract value) in the Small

Business Participation Plan?

A: Yes, the prime contractor shall include measurements (% of total subcontracted dollars and total contract value) in the Small Business Participation Plan.

UNCLASSIFIED 13 | Page

50) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, III, 1.0 Is the cover page and table of contents excluded from each volumes page count?

A: Yes.

51) Q: Instructions to Offerors, 7.2, III, 4.0, (c) Is a Basis of Estimate required for the option periods?

A: Yes.

52) Q: Will the successful offeror be permitted to use existing NGA enterprise license agreements?

A: The successful offeror shall not be permitted to use existing NGA enterprise license agreements for base service inventory. The intent is to scope a managed service – using

NGA licenses defeats that purpose. NGA licenses will likely be used for the “Non-Standard

Software” option – if this option is used, NGA will discuss alternatives for licensing with the contractor and select the most cost-advantageous approach.

53) Q: SOW 6.2.5 Is it NGA’s intent for offerors to propose to purchase all 100 each of the same brand and model thin client?

A: Selection of client brands / models is the decision of the contractor such that cost, performance, compatibility, complexity, etc. are satisfied within the contractor’s overall solution architecture. NGA only specifies the broad client types / categories for this pilot effort.

54) Q: SOW 6.2.5 Should the offeror execute the most cost effective purchase method for device types (A-E) i.e. purchase and/or lease?

A: Yes. However, NGA will only “purchase” 2 each of the 5 types of clients – the contractor may opt to acquire the remaining client devices in whatever manner is most cost effective, but they will be returned by NGA to the contractor at the end of the pilot contract. NGA will only have ownership of 10 devices total. So from an ownership standpoint, NGA is

“leasing” the equipment – whether from the contractor, a reseller, or whomever.

55) Q: FAR Clause 52.212-1 Paragraph (f) (2) (i) (A) of this clause which is referenced in

Section L states a proposal in considered late if “If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry

UNCLASSIFIED 14 | Page to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers”. Is this applicable to this proposal?

A: The section of the clause 52.212-1 (f) (2) (i) (A) is referring to late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers. Yes, this section is applicable under those circumstances. To reiterate the proposal due date is June 6, 2011 5:00 PM Eastern

Daylight Savings Time.

56) Q: The SOW states that "Contractor personnel must also possess necessary security clearances to gain access to facilities, networks, and equipment."

1. Will personnel performing work on this effort be required to have a current security clearance at the secret or top secret level?

2. Will these personnel be required to undergo an NGA background investigation for access to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information?

3. Will the NGA accept completed background investigation from other Federal agencies?

4. What paperwork will be required for the background investigation

5. Will the NGA Security POC information be made available to responders to this RFP prior to or after award of the contract?

A: The contractor hosting and provisioning the URHD must have a mechanism to ensure the personnel given access to the operations area and equipment have sufficiently vetted credentials in accordance with the security requirements and referenced security-related documents contained in the SOW. Per SOW Section 6.3.1, the URHD environment must be able to support Unclassified / For Official Use Only (FOUO), Contract Sensitive, Privacy

Act Data, Budget Sensitive, and Proprietary data, and the personnel having access to the system must meet the relevant personnel security rules to have exposure to this data. After contract award, the NGA security organization will identify a POC for the contractor to work with to complete such paperwork, clearance reciprocity, and other certifications to satisfy the personnel security guidelines and regulatory requirements.

57) Q: Where can offerors obtain copies of the applicable documents detailed in Appendix A?

A: These documents have been loaded on to the FedBizOpps website.

UNCLASSIFIED 15 | Page

58) Q: Need clarification of travel. What is considered local? What is the "home" location?

A: The travel requirement has been deleted from the SOW. An amendment to this RFP will be posted shortly with a revised SOW, which removes this requirement.

59) Q: Will NGA require some form of FDCC compliance? Since SCAP tools now exist, is there some level of requirement to use these tools in order to self-assert FDCC compliance?

A: Proposals intending to do this could be a way of enhancing the design capabilities to address the security requirements contained in Section 6.3.

60) Q: Does the Government plan on issuing an Excel Pricing workbook or is it acceptable for the contractor to supply a pricing workbook in Excel format in our response?

A: The Government does not intend on issuing an Excel Pricing workbook. The contractor is expected to follow the RFP instructions when submitting their cost and price data.

61) Q: Microsoft’s policy on managed VDI is that the OS license (win xp in this case) needs to be provided by the end user’s organization and needs to be provisioned on dedicated servers.

What software does client own license rights to?

A: We do not intend for the client to “own” any license rights – NGA is purchasing a managed service that is delivered to the clients on a fee-for-use basis. “Ownership” of software is completely with the contractor, except for the “Non-Standard Software” option – if this option is used, NGA will discuss alternatives for licensing with the contractor and select the most cost-advantageous approach.

62) Q: Is data uploaded continuous or one time at migration? What is this data?

A: The URHD must be capable of uploading / downloading data to authorized users at all points in the lifecycle of the pilot. There will not be a “migration bulk upload” in that NGA

UNCLASSIFIED 16 | Page

WILL NOT be, for example, uploading the existing enterprise MS Exchange e-mail into the pilot.

63) Q: Regarding the Printers – 5 multi-function – is that per user or every user is attached to only one?

A: The contractor shall provide a total of 5 multi-function printer physical units via the client device delivery. NGA will use these devices to conduct testing and demonstration of the

URHD pilot. If required, NGA can specify the user accounts to be configured to use one or more of the printers, although in principle, all accounts should be able to use them.

64) Q: Is TLS encryption is needed on the email solution?

A: The e-mail solution must be secure in a way that complies with the referenced documentation. Currently, NGA uses PKI certificates / digital signatures that are hosted on a

CAC card.

65) Q: It is our understanding that Microsoft will not license the Windows OS for Windows XP and Windows 7 for a virtual environment. Microsoft requires that the OS be provided on a dedicated server using end customer owned licenses. Would the NGA provide the Windows

OS licenses for the contractor to deliver on the URHDS? The contractor would be responsible for patching, upgrading and managing the software.

A: No. The contractor is responsible for the infrastructure associated with the URHD environment.

UNCLASSIFIED 17 | Page

66) Q: It is our recommendation that NGA provide their license keys to the contractor for some applications. The contractor will be responsible for patching, upgrading and managing the software. This will leverage the existing licenses that the NGA has for these users and will ensure that we are following the software users licensing requirements.

A: No. The contractor is responsible for the licensing associated with the URHD environment, except for the “Non-Standard Software” option – if this option is used, NGA will discuss alternatives for licensing with the contractor and select the most cost-advantageous approach.

67) Q: Please define, "connection to the URHD infrastructure". Can this be through a browser or must it be through a URHD Client?

A: It can be either way so long as it meets the security requirements of Section 6.3 of the

SOW, and exhibits satisfactory performance, reliability, stability, usability, etc.

68) Q: What is meant by desktop faxing, i.e. EFAX? Will the NGA provide the desktop fax server?

A: Desktop faxing means that, if I have, for example, an MS Word document in my URHD account, I can “fax” it to an end-point physical fax machine – e.g. I do not have to print it out in hardcopy and go to my own physical fax machine and transmit it.

69) Q: Will data need to be uploaded for the initial migration or could this be continuously throughout the pilot? What type of data will need to be uploaded?

A: The URHD must be capable of uploading / downloading data to authorized users at all points in the lifecycle of the pilot. There will not be a “migration bulk upload” in that NGA

WILL NOT be, for example, uploading the existing enterprise MS Exchange e-mail into the pilot.

UNCLASSIFIED 18 | Page

70) Q: Where is the local storage device? Will end users be able to save to the local storage without first storing to the shared storage?

A: Local storage device is physically attached to the client terminal – it is not a networked device or remote device. Users must be able to upload and download to this local device, and the authorization established per SOW section 6.2.4. Whether or not to allow direct-write-to-device and bypass the shared storage is something that the contractor can propose.

71) Q: Please provide some detail on the consent notification. Is it a couple of sentences or something more substantial? Does it require acknowledgement?

A: For example, it could look like:

“You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) that is provided for

USG-authorized use only. By using this IS (which includes any device attached to this IS), you consent to the following conditions:

-The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations.

-At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS.

-Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed or used for any USG authorized purpose.

-This IS includes security measures (e.g., authentication and access controls) to protect USG interests--not for your personal benefit or privacy.

-Notwithstanding the above, using this IS does not constitute consent to PM, LE or CI investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications, or work product, related to personal representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Such communications and work product are private and confidential. See User Agreement for details.”

72) Q: What type of support will be required for the demonstration? Where will the demonstration take place?

A: The demo requirement was deleted from the SOW, therefore the travel requirement was also deleted. The updated SOW will posted to FedBizOpps under Amendment 02.

UNCLASSIFIED 19 | Page

73) Q: During this Pilot does NGA envision the need for any “backhauls” into a current system running in the NGA space (ie- email server, identity management service, etc.)?

A: No. The pilot is its own network / environment. If the pilot successfully progresses, at the specified point in the CONOPS, NGA will access the URHD environment from a current system in NGA workspaces. That does not equate to “merging” or “unifying” the two in any way – it would simply be accessing the URHD environment via a different client terminal.

74) Q: For Blackberry and Cell Phone integration listed in SOW para 6.1 Table 2, can NGA clarify the collection of services they intend for the service provider to deliver on this Pilot?

A: To the degree feasible, practical and cost-effective, the capabilities on the mobile devices should be as broad as those on the thin clients and encompass the SOW specified requirements. The solution application(s) need not be identical – the intent is to have the same breadth of capabilities on the different types of client devices.

75) Q: Per RFP IV, 1.1.5, the Small Business Participation Approach requires supporting documentation:

(b) Small Business Participation Goals

(1) Each participation percentage below shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments.

(e) Extent of Commitment:

Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors.

Is the intent to provide the teaming agreement for each small business as supporting documentation? If so, can we reference the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and include the teaming agreements in that plan, or can we attach detailed documentation as an appendix to Volume 1, Executive Summary. Given the page count limit for Volume 1, we will exceed the 10-page limit if we include the teaming agreements as supporting documentation.

Alternately, if the intent is not to provide Teaming Agreements specifically, will teammate proposals within our pricing volume suffice as “supporting documentation?”

UNCLASSIFIED 20 | Page

A: Contractors are required as part of the Executive Summary Volume to submit Small

Business Participation Approach information in accordance with DFARS 215.304 and provide the information as specified in the RFP instructions. It will be up to each offeror on how best to present this information in their proposals.