EIS_RFP_QTA0015THA3003_-_SF30_-_Amend_10.docx

OMB Approval 2700-0042

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

General Services Administration/FAS/ITS Office of Acquisition Operations 1800 F Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington DC 20405

QTA0015THA3003

1710 H. Street, NW, 7th Floor

10/16/2015

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is __ extended, X is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATA SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and data specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor _ is not, _ is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

SEE ADDITIONAL PAGES

Except at provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

Timothy Horan Contracting Officer

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

RFP # QTA0015THA3003

Amendment #10

Questions, Answers and Clarifications to the EIS RFP

This amendment includes the following:

· Questions received from potential offerors regarding the RFP and the Acquserve Portal. All questions received thus far have been answered.

· Answers to the questions listed that do not require changes to the RFP Sections.

The questions, answers and clarifications are listed based on the UCF Sections. The question numbers are from the Acquserve portal.

Question:

A potential offeror indicates SNMPv3 vulnerabilities identified in 2008 and recommends that SNMPv3 not be listed as a standard. Instead, they suggest Common Information Model (CIM) as an appropriate alternative standard. Will GSA amend Section C.2.5.2.1.2 Standard number 3 of the RFP by adding the CIM standard as an alternative to the SNMPv3 standard?

Answer:

The RFP will not be amended. While the threat of spoofed SNMPv3 authentication can be cause for concern, workarounds now accepted as security best practices are available for mitigating the impact of the indicated SNMPv3 vulnerabilities. The most common system management infrastructure is still based upon SNMP, thus it remains the appropriate standard. Overlays, augmentation, and alternatives to SNMPv3 (e.g. CIM-based standards) may be requested at the task order level.

Question:

The level of detail related to IPSS that is being requested in the RFP we believe requires a For Official Use Only (FOUO) marking according to the classification guide we are instructed by DHS to follow that applies to IPSS. We would like GSA to reconsider their instruction that the submission must be unclassified. We also wish to make sure DHS is aware of the concern that IPSS information is being requested in a proposal that is in conflict with the marking requirements dictated by the DHS classification guide we must comply with.

Answer:

GSA is not requesting DHS-incumbent architectures for the current and existing DHS Nest and IPSS projects. Prior Q&A responses (cf. questions 276 and 356) specifically stated that information that is under restrictions from DHS is not being requested. Section L.29.2.3 specifically enumerates what information is requested in regard to the external traffic routing requirement described in Section C.1.8.8. None of the requested information articles shall be FOUO or classified, and they are elements that all offerors can address (incumbents and non-incumbents). Any additional, more detailed, task order solicitations from DHS may incorporate FOUO or classified specifications. GSA has been working closely with the DHS NCPS PMO, and DHS is aware of the potential offeror's concern.

Offerors are reminded of the specific language in Section L.27 as follows: 'The offeror shall not include classified material in its submission.' Including classified information in a proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration.

Question: #1006 - Acquserve

We have received and read Amendment 9. We are running continual compliance checks on Acquserve prior to final submission. Specific to the Government's answer to Question #1002, please confirm that the Acquserve changes referenced in the answer are not yet reflected in Acquserve. In addition, can the Government give a timeframe when those changes will be published so we can ensure a compliant submission? As a related matter, can GSA confirm if any additional changed to Acquserve are expected.

Answer:

GSA is working towards finalizing all configurations within AcquServe and is only attempting to keep up with Amendments and improve error checker results. Two items were pushed out today that will reduce some error checker false positives that will reduce the number of offeror's reported errors.

The AcquServe changes mentioned in the answer to question 1002 have been made.

Additional changes are possible to eliminate error checker false positives. The AcquServe Recent Change Log will be used to announce any further updates.