JEDI_Cloud_Industry_and_Gov_QA_Amendment_0001.pdf

JEDI Cloud Questions and Answers (Q&A) Matrix for Amendment 0001

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

219 L-2 5 16 512

"three copy minimum" redundancy is ambiguous and could be interpreted many ways. Does "three copy minimum" imply a triple mirror (3 x RAID 1) that requires 3X storage, which will potentially triple the cost? Or, are common approaches such as data reconstruction and erasure coding, often providing more resiliency to data loss, in some cases, than a triple mirror provides, acceptable?

Answers to this impact cost.

For the purposes of Pricing Scenario 5, three separate copies of the data must exist to meet the requirements specified. The Government will not speak to the validity of your proposed technical solution.

220 L-2 1 c 4 151

For CLINs x003 and x004, the Government explicitly stated that “This is not a time-and-materials or labor-hour based CLIN”.

However, in Pricing Scenarios 1 and 6, the Government asked Offeror's to estimate “remote in-depth architectural support for refactoring applications and configuring cloud infrastructure totaling 40 or 80 hours. Please advise if the 40 or 80 hours in various pricing scenarios is in addition to CLINs x003 and x004?

The hours identified in various pricing scenarios are to assist offerors in selecting an appropriate Cloud Support Package. These services are to be identified in their catalogs and priced as required in Section L8: Volume VI

- Price Submission Instructions.

221 L-2 1 d 4 162

For CLINs x003 and x004, the Government explicitly stated that “This is not a time-and-materials or labor-hour based CLIN”.

However, in Pricing Scenarios 1 and 6, the Government asked Offeror's to estimate “remote in-depth architectural support for refactoring applications and configuring cloud infrastructure totaling 40 or 80 hours. Please advise if the 40 or 80 hours in various pricing scenarios is in addition to CLINs x003 and x004?

The hours identified in various pricing scenarios are to assist offerors in selecting an appropriate Cloud Support Package. These services are to be identified in their catalogs and priced as required in Section L8: Volume VI

- Price Submission Instructions.

222 L-2 6 a 19 621

For CLINs x003 and x004, the Government explicitly stated that “This is not a time-and-materials or labor-hour based CLIN”.

However, in Pricing Scenarios 1 and 6, the Government asked Offeror's to estimate “remote in-depth architectural support for refactoring applications and configuring cloud infrastructure totaling 40 or 80 hours. Please advise if the 40 or 80 hours in various pricing scenarios is in addition to CLINs x003 and x004?

The hours identified in various pricing scenarios are to assist offerors in selecting an appropriate Cloud Support Package. These services are to be identified in their catalogs and priced as required in Section L8: Volume VI

- Price Submission Instructions.

223 RFP C4 5.b. 15 151 - 161

A hyper-scale cloud provider may have hundreds, or more, control agreements relating to their proposed hardware infrastructure.

Providing all such agreements in the proposal would be unduly burdensome for the offeror and the government. Please confirm that offerors may self-certify to control through lease agreements that provide control rights equivalent to ownership and meet the requirements of C4.5.b.i and C4.5.b.ii.

Section C4 is amended to allow for self-certification to evidence compliance with the requirements of C4.5 and its subparagraphs.

224 RFP C4 5c 15 162

Are the letters specified in C4.5.c required to be submitted on the date of proposal submission in order to meet the gate criteria?

Section M for Sub-factor 1.3 states in part "The Government will also evaluate if the Offeror provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate control of the unclassified environment IAW Section C4 of the RFP."

Section L3: Volume I - Contract Documentation Instructions Tab B description the documentation to be provided with the proposal, such as Self-certification that the Offeror meets the requirements of Section C4.

225 L-2 6 18 561-575 Are there any data lifecycle management (e.g. tiering) of the storage in the data warehouse in alignment with the other pricing scenarios?

Pricing Scenario 6 was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001.

226 L-1 3 3.2.2.1 5 171-175 As the Statement of Objectives has been updated, does the government choose to provide an updated PWS/SOO Matrix or does the government choose the contractor to update the matrix?

Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix, has been replaced with the amended version, Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix- Amendment 0002.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

227 RFP 0 0 0 0

Based on the revised SOO requirements in Amendment 1, will there be a revised Attachment L-8, SOO crosswalk matrix provided?

Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix, has been replaced with the amended version, Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix- Amendment 0002.

228 RFP 0 0 0 0

Based upon Amendment 1 changes to multiple documents, we request that the Department of Defense (DoD) extend the 17 SEP 2018 due date by 30 days.

The JEDI Cloud RFP is amended to extend the proposal due date/time to 12:00 PM ET on 9 October 2018.

229 RFP C4 6 16 176 - 178

Because cloud infrastructure hardware is personal property and not real property, commercial cloud providers do not publicly record legal instruments evidencing ownership. Likewise, commercial cloud providers do not publicly record legal instruments evidencing ownership of computer software. Because it is not feasible for offerors to comply with the requirement in C4.6 that ownership must be established by a recorded document, we suggest removing that requirement. Alternatively, please confirm that “recorded document” means a written document and not a publicly recorded document.

A recorded document for purposes of RFP Section C4.6 means a written document, and not a publicly recorded document. Section C4 is amended to clarify.

230 RFP L8 3 87 3063-3068

Consistent with the requirement of FAR 15.402(b) that contracts be priced independently, please confirm that the government will exclude from any offeror’s Total Evaluate Price any license credit or other form or price reduction that is based upon a license that the government procured under an existing contract. If the government will consider license credits in the Total Evaluated Price, how will the government ensure that the price evaluation compares equally offerors who have not provided such credits to the government to those whose prices include reductions for license credits?

The government will not consider license credits or other forms of price reductions in the Total Evaluated Price that are based on an external agreement or contract.

The government evaluation is based on Offeror's proposal. All discounts (whether called a license credit or other form of price reduction), the prescribed algorithm for discount computation, and any terms and conditions affecting applicability of the discount must be clearly described and documented in Attachment J-3: Contractor Discounts, Premiums, and Fees as part of the proposal. Discounts unique to the pricing scenarios or otherwise inconsistent between the pricing scenarios and Attachment J-3 will not be accepted and may render the proposal unacceptable.

231 RFP Factor 2 1a 0 0

Does Raise the Bar apply to this item if not transferring data across classification levels?

Factor 2 was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001. Nonetheless, because this information is helpful for all Offerors, the government notes that all data transfers between isolated enclaves in the JEDI Cloud must use a Transfer Cross Domain Solution that is consistent with the 2018 Raise the Bar Cross Domain Solution Design and Implementation Requirements.

232 RFP Factor 2 1a 0 0

Does this assume a government controlled unclassified environment with government provided their network availability for unclassified data transfers or open to internet?

Factor 2 was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001. Nonetheless, because this information is helpful for all Offerors, the government notes that there is no requirement to traverse a Government network because the data transfer is from one JEDI Cloud isolated enclave to another JEDI Cloud isolated enclave.

233 RFP L4 1.2 76 2548

Due to limited FEDRAMP JAB openings and time duration of Agency Authorizations, will DOD set the time for FedRAMP Moderate Authorization for the JEDI Cloud data centers for 30 Days after Contract Award or 30-days after Kick-OFF so DoD can take advantage of the latest technologies and maximize competition?

The requirement remains as stated. Post-award, the contractor must provide the unclassified data centers and services meeting all requirements in the JEDI Cyber Security Plan, which requires more than FedRAMP Moderate.

However, the Government notes that the RFP does not restrict an Offeror from proposing its latest technologies, even if not FEDRAMP authorized at the time of proposal. The RFP also does not prescribe which specific IaaS offering and which specific PaaS offering is used to satisfy the Sub-Factor

1.2 Gate Criteria.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

234 RFP B B-1 4 0

For CLIN 0007, for the PMO can you please clarify if you will need Cloud Vendor staff to help with ATO/STIG of a specific application/projects being migrated into the JEDI Cloud. If yes, please specify scope and amount of time per application and what application you want us to price?

As stated in previous Q&A releases, migration support, direct application support, and any support related to application accreditation or other external processes are outside the scope of the RFP.

235 L-2 1 b 4 137

For CLINs x003 and x004, the Government explicitly stated that “This is not a time-and-materials or labor-hour based CLIN”.

However, in Pricing Scenarios 1 and 6, the Government asked Offeror's to estimate “remote in-depth architectural support for refactoring applications and configuring cloud infrastructure totaling 40 or 80 hours. Please advise if the 40 or 80 hours in various pricing scenarios is in addition to CLINs x003 and x004?

The hours identified in various pricing scenarios are to assist offerors in selecting an appropriate Cloud Support Package. These services are to be identified in their catalogs and priced as required in Section L8: Volume VI

- Price Submission Instructions.

236 RFP B B-1 2

For the Cloud Support Packages in CLIN 1003 and 1004 can you clarify if you will need Cloud Vendor staff to help with ATO/STIG of specific application/projects being migrated into the JEDI Cloud.

As stated in previous Q&A releases, migration support, direct application support, and any support related to application accreditation or other external processes are outside the scope of the RFP.

237 L-2 0 0 0 0

For the Cloud Support Packages in Pricing Scenarios can you clarify if you will need Cloud Vendor staff to help with ATO/STIG of specific application/projects being migrated into the JEDI Cloud.

The Cloud Support Package requirements were not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001. Nonetheless, the Offeror's attention is directed to attachment L-2, Price Scenarios Amendment 0002, Page 1, Paragraph c., "Offerors should assume that the migration of any applications described into JEDI Cloud is an instantaneous operation that takes place on day 1 of the order unless explicitly stated otherwise; this migration of any applications is not to be priced."

238 RFP L1 11 67 2259

Given the changes in requirements based on Amendment 1, and the release of Amendment 1 so close to the proposal due date, will the Government grant an extension of 3 weeks?

The RFP is amended to extend the proposal deadline until October 9, 2018 at 12:00 pm.

239 RFP C4 0 15 143

If the actual agreements are required to meet the gate criteria, can offerors provide the relevant excerpts of those agreements to meet the gate criteria? This will help reduce the volume of documentation that is required to be produced.

Section C4 is amended to allow for self-certification to evidence compliance with the requirements of C4.5 and its subparagraphs.

240 RFP C4 0 15 143

If the offeror has lease agreements with data centers and POPs and is the owner of the hardware and software described in C4.4 at those facilities, does self-certification of the agreements in lieu of providing copies of the agreements meet the gate criteria?

Section C4 is amended to allow for self-certification to evidence compliance with the requirements of C4.5 and its subparagraphs.

241 L-1 3 3.2.2.1 5 171

In Amendment 0001, the Government provided an updated Statement of Objectives but no update to Attachment L-8 SOO crosswalk matrix. This results in differences between the crosswalk matrix and the SOO document. For example, the SOO now contains section 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2, but the crosswalk matrix does not. The PWS instructions ask offerors to provide a PWS (TAB A) in response to the SOO, not the crosswalk matrix. Does the Government intend to reconcile the two documents?

Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix, has been replaced with the amended version, Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix- Amendment 0002.

242 RFP L L1 68 2261

Instructions state "a tab must be submitted as a single complete file (excluding appendices)". However L-2, item 3 states that Appendices shall be provided at the end of the respective Tab file.

Please advise if the required Appendix information should be provided as a separate file or at the end of the respective Tab.

The RFP is amended to clarify that appendices are to be included at the end of the respective Tab.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

243 L-2 3 0 10 315-320

Is it the intent of the government to provide high-speed WAN connectivity for all Edge Devices via NIPRNET, SIPRNET and JWICS? If so, what SLAs can the cloud provider provide since we do not control those networks?

This aspect of the RFP was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001. Nonetheless, because this information is helpful for all Offerors, the government notes that the Offeror is required to ensure their network and service availability allows them to meet or exceed the Performance Metrics outlined in the SOO for any requests that make it onto the Offeror's network or come over the internet. Managing connectivity from the cloud provider's network to the tactical edge is the responsibility of the DoD, and is outside the scope of the Pricing Scenarios.

244 RFP C4 5.b. 15 151 - 161

It is common commercial cloud industry practice to lease computer hardware (e.g., servers) through finance leases that grant the cloud provider control rights that are equivalent to ownership and meet the requirements of C4.5.b.i and C4.5.b.ii. At the end of the term of a finance lease, title to the hardware reverts to the cloud provider.

Because the cloud provider takes title to hardware at the end of the term of a finance lease, the requirement in section C4.5.c to obtain a letter from the hardware owner (lessor) promising to renew the lease if the term does not last until 364 days after the current contract ordering period is inapplicable. Consistent with this, we suggest the following revision to the definition of “control” in section C4.5.b:

“Has a bilaterally signed agreement (Control Agreement) that is binding for at least 364 days following each respective ID/IQ ordering period (or, if shorter than 364 days beyond the ordering period, the end of the term results in the contractor becoming the owner, as defined in this section, paragraph 6).”

Section C4 is amended to clarify the requirement.

245 RFP C4 5.b. 15 151 - 161

It is common commercial cloud industry practice to lease computer hardware (e.g., servers) through finance leases that grant the cloud provider control rights that are equivalent to ownership and meet the requirements of C4.5.b.i and C4.5.b.ii. At the end of the term of a finance lease, title to the hardware reverts to the cloud provider.

Please confirm that an offeror who maintains complete control of hardware infrastructure through finance leases may self-certify to ownership under Section C4.

Section C4 is amended to allow for self-certification to evidence compliance with the requirements of C4.5 and its subparagraphs.

246 L-1 3 3.19 11 398 - 415

JEDI is a commercial item contract under FAR Part 12, and DoD states a preference for “existing” commercial item tactical edge solutions. Consistent with this, SOO 3.19.5 states that tactical edge devices shall be certified as meeting MIL-STD-810G only at the government’s request. This requirement acknowledges the reality that commercial cloud providers may not have designed commercial devices to meet military specifications. Contrary to this, however, DoD requires in SOO 3.19.11 that all proposed tactical edge devices must meet temperature threshold requirements in MIL-STD-810G.

Existing commercial devices may not meet these temperature specifications because they were not designed to meet military specifications. Please confirm that offerors may propose existing commercial items to meet the RFP’s tactical edge requirements subject to later compliance with MIL-STD-810G temperature requirements at government request.

The SOO Part 3.19.11 references MIL-STD-810G Part Three, Table 1 for a standardized description of the minimum transporting and operating temperatures required for tactical edge devices. Tactical edge devices that could not operate in the field under those temperature conditions would be of limited use to the DoD. Meeting these temperature requirements is separate from the broader certification under MIL-STD-810G, which is only necessary at government request.

Section M, Factor 3 has been revised to specify the date by which certain unclassified tactical edge offerings must be available. Offerors are reminded that this is a fixed-price contract and that offerings meeting the tactical edge requirements of the SOO must be proposed with definitive pricing.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

247 L-2 Price

Scenario

3 89, 100

Line 89 states that each of the analysis jobs will read 700 GB of data from the static file store. There are 4 jobs, which would equal 2,800 GB (2.7 TB) of reads. Line 100 states that the total amount reads from the analysis nodes and the application is 2 TB. Given that the sum of reads from the analytic node alone exceeds 2 TB, line 100 appears to have an error. Can the government clarify its intent for these two values, or correct the sum between the application and the analytic nodes?

The daily total for data read from the static file store should be 3 TB. The error has been corrected in the amendment.

248 RFP L2 5 72 2315

Per FAR clause 52.215-1(e), please confirm that a title page shall be included at the beginning of each volume and is excluded from page count.

A title page is only included in the Offeror's proposal if circumstances meet the FAR clause where "proposals [contain] data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall—(1) Mark the title page with" the legend provided within the clause. If a title page is included for this purpose, then it will not be included within the page count. Otherwise, a title page is not necessary as the file name should describe what is contained within the file.

249 L-1 5 5.1 14 501

Performance Metrics 1-31 seem to be salient characteristics of a specific provider rather than general measurable metrics. Are they based on current performance metrics within the DoD Data Centers?

If so, can you provide the various reporting tools used to gather the information.

The Performance Metrics in the Statement of Objectives, as with the rest of the RFP package, reflects the Department of Defense's requirements for JEDI Cloud. The Department launched the cloud initiative to increase lethality of the warfighter and advance the mission. From the beginning, the enterprise cloud initiative has been open, transparent, and fair. A team of Department experts developed the performance metrics to meet the Department's requirements. The requirements were not developed for a particular vendor. Any assertion to the contrary is false.

250 L-1 5 5.1 14 501

Performance Metrics 1-31 seem to be salient characteristics of a specific provider rather than general measurable metrics. How were these requirements developed?

The Performance Metrics in the Statement of Objectives, as with the rest of the RFP package, reflects the Department of Defense's requirements for JEDI Cloud. The Department launched the cloud initiative to increase lethality of the warfighter and advance the mission. From the beginning, the enterprise cloud initiative has been open, transparent, and fair. A team of Department experts developed the performance metrics to meet the Department's requirements. The requirements were not developed for a particular vendor. Any assertion to the contrary is false.

251 L-2 3 0 10 315-320

Please provide the bandwidth of each of the networks of the Gov't WAN that the edge device is expected to use and what SLA is provided to the Cloud Provider?

This aspect of the RFP was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001. Nonetheless, because this information is helpful for all Offerors, the government notes that the Offeror is required to ensure their network and service availability allows them to meet or exceed the Performance Metrics outlined in the SOO for any requests that make it onto the Offeror's network or come over the internet. Managing connectivity from the cloud provider's network to the tactical edge is the responsibility of the DoD, and is outside the scope of the Pricing Scenarios.

252 RFP L5

Factor 3 -

Tactical Edge (Tab C)

81 2808 -

Q&A 69 removed the requirement to quantify electromagnetic emanations from the SOO; however, this requirement is still in the RFP. We request that the government remove the requirement from the RFP for consistency.

Offerors are no longer required to provide a mechanism by which a user can quantify the electromagnetic emanations of a tactical edge device.

Offerors are still required to quantify the electromagnetic emanations of any proposed tactical edge device under the various conditions described in Factor 3, 1.e.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

253 RFP L2 5 72 2315

Question 109 states, “Offerors may include the table of contents for each Volume at the beginning of Tab A or as a separate electronic file.” This change does not include guidance for the glossaries of acronyms, which previous instructions said to provide with each volume’s table of contents. Can the government confirm that the separate “Table of Contents” file should also include a full glossary of acronyms that represents all volumes and that is outside of page count per Section L2.5?

The full glossary of acronyms shall be located within the same section/file as the table of contents and will not count against the page count for that proposal tab.

254 RFP L2 5 72 2315

Question 109 states, “Offerors may include the table of contents for each Volume at the beginning of Tab A or as a separate electronic file.” What should the naming convention of the separate electronic file be?

The RFP has been amended to clarify that if submitted as a separate file, the table of contents file naming convention shall be "Company Name_18- R-0077_Volume X_Table of Contents"

255 RFP Factor 2 1a 0 0

Requirement "Allow an isolated enclave to transfer data to other enclaves in a highly controlled, deterministic manner, without introducing the security threats that normally come from connectivity;" does not specify cloud or classification level. Is it correct to assume that both enclaves are at the same security level and will use a cloud at the same level to facilitate transfer of data?

This aspect of the RFP was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001.

Not all data transfers will be across the same classification level. All data transfers between isolated enclaves in the JEDI Cloud must use a Transfer Cross Domain Solution that is consistent with the 2018 Raise the Bar Cross Domain Solution Design and Implementation Requirements.

256 L-1 3 3.18.2 10 370

Section 3.18.2 of the SOO requires that Offerors make 90% of free marketplace offerings available under the JEDI contract and Section L3 of the RFP requires Offerors to provide executed H8 Addenda related to all such offerings. Cloud providers do not control third-party marketplace vendors and cannot feasibly commit to making any percentage of third-party vendors execute H8 Addenda. In the case of free offerings, where vendors only make their software available for free if the vendor can avoid or substantially minimize its possible liability, vendors will have little incentive to take on potential additional liability related to the H8 terms. This 90% requirement unfairly penalizes Offerors with large selections of commercially-available free service offerings. For example, an Offeror with 10 commercially-available free service offerings could comply with the RFP by making 9 offerings available and executing 9 H8 Addenda, while an Offeror with 1,000 free offerings would need to make 900 offerings available and execute 900 H8 Addenda. We recommend that the Government revise Section

3.18.2 of the SOO to state: “Offerors shall make reasonable efforts to execute H8 Addenda with all third-party marketplace vendors that provide price-free third-party platform and software service offerings in the CSP’s publically available commercial cloud environment. Upon execution of an H8 Addendum, Offerors shall make all platform and software service offerings covered by the executed Addendum available in the unclassified JEDI Cloud.” This change will maximize the third-party marketplace offerings available to the Government, without mandating the unfeasible combination of requiring H8 Addenda related to 90% of the Offeror’s free third-party marketplace offerings.

The RFP has been amended to clarify that Section H8 Addenda does not need to be provided so long as the third party agreements are for third party offerings provided through the online marketplace where Clause H10 applies.

257 RFP C4 5b 15 157 Since the award date and the first ID/IQ period are not yet fixed, for the purpose of meeting the C4 gate criteria as defined in C4.5.b, what calendar years does DOD require that the agreements cover?

For purposes of C4, the Offeror shall assume the dates in Section F1 define the period of performance referenced in C4.5.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

258 L-2 3 0 10 315-320

Since this scenario is happening at various security levels and edge devices are located in remote tactical collection locations, how is a WAN going to be established by the Cloud Provider?

This aspect of the RFP was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001.

The Offeror is not responsible for providing WAN connectivity to the tactical edge.

259 RFP L3 Tab I F 2448-2451

The Enterprise License Agreements the government is discussing were previously negotiated with an original government entity and binding with them. Is the intent for the Licensing Addendum to modify those terms based on JEDI requirements?

The H8 Licensing Addendum is applicable to offerings delivered under the JEDI Cloud, not other contracts.

260 RFP L3 Tab C 73 2382-2391

The Government asks offerors to “identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal” within the cover letter.

A complete listing of all files being submitted within proposal submissions will require more than the 1 page offerors are limited to within the cover letter. We request the page limit for Volume I Tab C: Cover Letter be increased to 2 pages to accommodate a comprehensive listing of enclosures.

The solicitation is amended to update Table L-1 Tab C to reflect a maximum allowance of 2 pages for the Cover Letter.

261 RFP H2 4 24 503 - 513

The government can ensure the price reasonableness of new classified services without the requirement in Clause H2.4.a that the “price premium” can be no more than the premium applicable to the most similar service. A single service may have multiple prices in different regions, meaning there is no single “price premium” between unclassified and classified environments. DoD can ensure the reasonableness of new service pricing by allowing contractors to propose their commercial pricing practices and evaluating those practices in the procurement. To enable this, we suggest DoD should remove the following language from Clause H2.4.a at Line 506: “the lesser expensive premium among the following.”

Clause H2 has been revised in the amendment.

262 RFP L3 Tab J 75 2456 -

The Government issued a modified SOO within Amendment 1, but did not release a modified “Attachment_L-8_PWS- SOO_Crosswalk_Matrix”. Should offerors update column A in the crosswalk to reflect changes in the SOO? Or will the Government release a revised Attachment L-8 to reflect Amendment 1 changes?

Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix, has been replaced with the amended version, Attachment L-8 PWS-SOO Crosswalk Matrix- Amendment 0002.

263 RFP L Factor 9 85 3000

The government requests price and unpriced BOEs. The priced BOEs would have similar information to Attachment L-5. Could the government change the requirement to unpriced BOEs and require priced and unpriced Attachment L-5? This would eliminate duplication of effort between the BOEs and L-5.

As currently stated in the solicitation, "Offerors may use its own format for the BOEs in MS Word and/or MS Excel." Offerors are welcome to utilize Attachment L-5, Price Scenario Price Build-Up Template in their BOEs.

Offerors are still required to furnish all information as identified in Section L8: Volume VI - Price Submission Instructions, Section 2: Prices and Unpriced BOE.

264 L-2 Price

Scenario

12 376-377

The government states that the classification level of the data on the portable devices is unclassified and is transferred to the Secret level.

We believe the government intended to specify that the classification level of the portable device, in addition to the data, is unclassified, thereby requiring a cross-domain data transfer. Was this the government’s intent? If not, please clarify.

Pricing Scenario 1 (c) indicates a data sync to both an unclassified JEDI Cloud workspace and a classified JEDI Cloud workspace, so a cross-domain data transfer will be required. The Pricing Scenarios have been amended to indicate the classification of the portable tactical edge devices where appropriate.

265 L-1 3 3 4 129-136

The Government states that the Cyber Security Plan Criteria must be met after the Post Award Kick-Off, however, the Government continues to require that FedRAMP be completed at submission of the proposal. With a significant portion of the Cyber Security Plan being duplicative to FedRAMP, would the government extend the FedRAMP certification deadline to prior to Post Award Kick-Off rather than upon submission of the response?

The requirement remains as stated. Post-award, the contractor must provide the unclassified data centers and services meeting all requirements in the JEDI Cyber Security Plan, which requires more than FedRAMP Moderate.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

266 RFP L 3 74 2448

The indemnification requirement contained within Section H10, paragraph 2.a. of the RFP, renders the submission of H8 Addenda related to free third-party marketplace offerings unnecessary. Section H10 requires Offerors to indemnify the Government against claims related to “alleged violation[s] of a third-party license agreement[s]” that conflict with the contract. Because Offerors are already agreeing to take on financial responsibility related to Government violations of third-party license agreement terms that are inconsistent with Section H8 of the RFP, the Government will not be liable for any such violations and, therefore, H8 Addenda related to those offerings are unnecessary. As such, we recommend the Government revise RFP Section L3, Tab I (lines 2440-41) and remove the requirement for Offerors to obtain and submit EULAs and H8 Addenda related to third-party marketplace offerings. This change will increase the number of third-party marketplace offerings available under the contract, while maintaining all legally required Government protections and removing the unnecessary and unreasonable administrative burdens associated the collection and evaluation of thousands of EULAs and H8 Addenda.

RFP Section L3, Tab I is revised in the amendment.

267 RFP L1 11 68 2256-2274

The RFP instructs offerors to submit proposals partially via email and partially through the AMRDEC SAFE file transfer if one or more files exceeds the 25 MB limit. To avoid submission confusion, will the government revise the proposal submission instructions to allow complete proposal submission via the AMRDEC SAFE file transfer?

File submission requirements remain unchanged.

268 L-2 1.0 All Scenarios 1

To ensure accurate calculations, does 1024 GB or 1000 GB equal 1 TB? Industry standard is 1000 GB but the proposal seems to align to 1024 and this is needed to ensure accuracy of calculations.

All units in the Pricing Scenarios are base 10, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

269 RFP L1 11 68 2258

We respectfully request an extension of the JEDI proposal due date to September 28, 4:00 pm ET. Offerors need sufficient time to ensure that any changes resulting from additional government information and instructions are reflected fully and consistently across both the technical and pricing elements of their proposals. This extension is necessary to allow offerors to address information and instructions presented in Amendment 1 to the Final RFP issued on August 23. Offerors will also need time to incorporate the government’s response to questions and comments on Amendment 1 once they are provided.

The JEDI Cloud RFP is amended to extended the proposal due date/time to 12:00 PM ET on 9 October 2018.

270 L-2 3 10 301-313 What are the computational requirements for the model created and maintained by the Department clarified in Amendment 1?

Pricing Scenario 3 has been amended to include additional technical details for the sample files and the number of hours required to train each model.

271 L-2 3 10 308-309 What is the audio duration and sampling rate of each of the 2MB WAV files?

Pricing Scenario 3 has been amended to specify that the audio files are 10 second long 24-bit WAV files.

272 L-2 3 0 10 315-320 What liability does the government incur if their network availability goes down and impacts a cloud SLA?

This aspect of the RFP was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001.

273 L-2 3 0 10 315-320 What software can we install on the Gov't WAN for logging, synchronization and monitoring, what authorizations does the cloud provider have to access those networks in remote locations?

The Offeror is not responsible for providing WAN connectivity to the tactical edge.

274 L-2 3 10 309-313 What type of audio analysis (e.g. Transcription, Speaker recognition, Translation, etc) will the models created by the Department be trained to perform?

The audio models in Pricing Scenario 3 will be transcribing spoken Widgetese into its written form. This has been amended.

ID #

Industry Submitted Information Government ResponseFinal RFP

Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Information Request (Question)

275 RFP B x001 and x002 0 0 Will the DoD based on FAR rules be able to use "pay as you go" pricing and be billed in arrears for what is used?

That section was not modified as part of Amendment 0001. This question is outside the scope of the Amendment 0001.

276 RFP L2

Table L1, Volume III, Tab C

81-82 2788-2854

Will the government please add two additional pages to Volume III Tab C Tactical Edge so the contractor can describe all the category one and category two device capabilities that we have to offer as requested by the government.

The page count remains the same.

277 L-2 3 10 301-313 Will the models created and maintained by the Department be trained from scratch, or will they utilize transfer learning using existing models?

In Pricing Scenario 3, the models will be trained from scratch using a JEDI Cloud service. This has been amended.