RFP_SAQMMA13R0211_Questions_(A002).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IDIQs for Desktops and Monitors
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0211
About this file
RFP SAQMMA13R0211 Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 51 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Date | |||||
| Received | RFP Reference | Question | Response | Action Items | |
| 1 | 3/28/13 | We would like to request that the Survey responses you received within the last month from our three references transfer over into our IDIQ evaluation; as Attachment B remains the same between the two Solicitations, and we would like to refrain from inconveniencing our customers again, if possible. | In accordance with Section 17.5.2, offerors shall complete only the top portion of Attachment B and return that document with their electronic proposal. DOS will then contact the references directly to obtain past performance information. In addition, offerors shall complete Attachment C in its entirety and submit that document with their electronic proposal. | ||
| 2 | 3/28/13 | The onboard graphics processor HP 7660D doesn’t have dedicated VRAM, so should we focus on the minimum threshold or go with the HD 6350 PCI card which does support it | If in the BIOS you can dedicate System RAM to Video (up to the VRAM requirement) then it is acceptable. | ||
| 3 | 3/27/13 | I am contacting you regarding the requirement mentioned above. I was just wondering if this was a new requirement or if there is a previous contractor that fulfilled the same or similar requirements. If yes, could you please provide the contractor's name and contract number | Requirement was previously fulfilled via multiple award Blanket Purchase Agreements. GovConnection (SAQMMA09A0795); CDWG (SAQMMA09A0796); JC Technology (SAQMMA09A0797). | ||
| 4 | 3/27/13 | We are a Women Owned Small Business and we were curious if you would consider placing the solicitation as a WOSB set-aside? | Decision to set aside for small business was made based on market research and preference for establishing multiple-award, indefinite delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts | ||
| 5 | 3/28/13 | Is SAQMMA13R0211, IDIQs for Desktops and Monitors, a new procurement or a follow-on to previous work? If it is a re-compete, could you please provide the incumbent name, contract number, contract award dollar amount, and period of performance dates | See answer to Question 4 | ||
| 6 | 3/29/13 | 1, Desktop with 8gb no size of GB for hard drive No listing of processor, Large frame, Mini Tower, or All-in one. Monitors Flat screen, Wide Screen. What format what DPI, Fiber card what size Specifications .PKI Reader what type. These are just some of the questions. Please advise. Also is a Third party vendor ok. | The question from the vendor is unclear; however, it should be note that information regarding hard drive size, form factor, LCD, and PKI requirements are listed on each tab of Attachment A. | ||
| 8 | 3/29/13 | This acquisition is a 100% set aside for small business concerns. The Small Business Administration has |
approved an individual waiver to non-manufacturer rule for the following products: desktop computers, 22-inch LCD monitors, 2.5-inch removable hard drive, 3.5-inch internal hard drive, desktop network fiber NIC, desktop fire wire card, PKI Card Reader and RFID Tags." Yet on page 3 (last line at the bottom of the page) and page 12 (Table 9.2.1), the RFQ states: "PKI Card Reader (Must be end product of domestic small business concern)"
| The waiver to the non-manufacturer rule applies to CLINs 001 through 009. The table in Section 3 - Supply Requirements has been updated to remove the following language: Must be end product of domestic small business concern | ||
| 9 | 4/1/13 | In the past performance section (section 17.5.2), it references providing 3 previous contracts similar in size/scope/complexity under which the contractor delivered IT desktops and monitors or “similar supplies”. |
As far as “similar supplies” go, could you please provide some additional detail on what you would consider acceptable to reference? Would storage devices, network devices, land mobile radios, thin clients, telecom equipment, etc. qualify? If not, please provide examples that would.
| DoS is specifically interested in vendors that have experience in delivering desktops and monitors. Section 17.5.2 has been updated to remove "similar supplies" | ||
| 10 | 4/1/13 | According to the requirements page, section 10 – it appears GITM is simply requesting a Depot warranty for any damaged or under-warranty repair that may be required. Therefore, the vendor will be responsible for pickup of the system at Grainger Ct and repair within the time frames allotted. Is this the universal process for all units provided under this contract? |
Will the vendor, at any point, be required to repair a systems on-site at any location throughout the world?
If on-site and/or worldwide warranty is required, can this be done using a sub-contracted OEM approved service provider?
| For OCONUS locations where there is OEM support, warranty can be transferred to OEM representative in host country as long as there is no cost to the government. Otherwise equipment is to be sent to the United States for repair. DOS requires a three year worldwide warranty supported by the OEM. The requirement is for a three year worldwide warranty supported by the OEM. The vendor is responsible for the coordination of repair efforts with the OEM once DOS returns the equipment to the vendor. | |||
| 11 | 4/2/13 | Can you clarify your statement “awarded within the past two (2) calendar years”. If we have a BPA/IDIQ type contract awarded prior to 2011, but which is still active and for which we are still processing orders, can we utilize that as one of our examples for Attachment C? Can we use an example of work performed for the Department of State, or do you specifically prefer that we NOT use DOS References? | The language in Section 17.5.2 has been updated to the following: The Contractor shall describe work performed on three (3) past federal Government or private sector contracts, similar in size (dollar value), scope (substantially the same supplies) and complexity (degree of difficulty) within the past two (2) calendar years, under which the Contractor delivered IT desktops and monitors or similar supplies. Both DOS and non-DOS references will be considered. |
| 12 | 4/2/13 | You reference a “paper copy”, but this appears to be an electronic submittal. Can you clarify if you want us to mail / deliver a paper copy of each Attachment B? Also, are we as the bidder required to forward a partially completed Attachment B to each listed reference, or are you going to contact them directly on our behalf, after we submit our proposal? | Attachment B should be submitted electronically to DicksonMS@state.gov |
| 13 | 4/2/13 | [Vendor] is currently preparing and is planning to submit a proposal on the above referenced solicitation. In doing so, our review of the requirements of the solicitation has generated the following question: A requirement of the nonmanufacturer rule in a 100% small business set-aside opportunity is that if an offeror is providing products they themselves did not manufacture, to qualify as a small business that offeror must supply the end item of a small business manufacturer, produced in the United States, unless a waiver of that requirement is obtained. Section 2.1 (page 3 of 42) of the solicitation states that the Small Business Administration has approved an individual waiver to the non-manufacturer rule for the following products: desktop computers, 22-inch LCD monitors, 2.5-inch removable hard drive, 3.5-inch internal hard drive, desktop network fiber NIC, desktop fire wire card, PKI Card Reader and RFID Tags. However, both sections 3.1 (page 3 & 4 of 42) and 9.2.1 (page 12 of 42) indicate that the PKI Card Reader and the RFID Tag “must be end product of a domestic small business concern”. Section 2.1 and Sections 3.1 & 9.2.1 seem to contradict. Please provide clarification as to whether the PKI Card Reader and RFID Tag must be an end product of domestic small business concern. | See answer to Question 8 |
| 14 | 4/2/13 | The solicitation states that the contractor shall describe three (3) past federal Government or private sector contracts, similar in size (dollar value), scope (substantially the same supplies) and complexity (degree of difficulty) awarded within the past two (2) calendar years, under which the Contractor delivered IT desktops and monitors or similar supplies. Question: Will large dollar value five year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts where the Base Year of the IDIQ contract was initially awarded before the past two (2) calendar years, but the contract Option Years have been exercised within the past two (2) calendar years (the Option Years are current and contract task orders are actively being awarded), be accepted by the Government as meeting the requirements of the Past Performance and Similar Experience portions of the solicitation (paragraphs 17.5.2, 20.1.3, & 20.1.4)? | See answer to Question 11 |
| 15 | 4/3/13 | Will you consider waiving or deleting the EPEAT Requirement? This requirement is listed as line item #7 in the General Technical Requirements. | No. |
| 16 | 4/3/13 | On the “Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)”, can we expand the dimensions to 6.9" W X 17.4" D X 16.3" H to make more solutions available for a removable drive? | No. |
| 17 | 4/3/13 | Section 6.2 (e) states that 120 days lead time is required for returning defective items from Government OCONUS locations. Can you please explain the reason for this requirement? | Due to the complex nature of shipping to/from OCONUS locations, DOS requires a 120 lead time for all warranty issues. Please note that at a minimum DOS requires at least a 3-year world wide warranty supported by the OEM. Additionally, the reseller is responsible for coordination of repair efforts with the OEM. |
| 18 | 4/3/13 | Is a VPAT an acceptable alternative to a GPAT that is requested in various locations of the DoS RFQ? | |
| No | |||
| 19 | 4/3/13 | For CONUS service at Springfield, VA would onsite repairs, instead of pick-up, be an acceptable method to provide warranty service? | DOS will allow for on site repairs for equipment purchased through the GITM office as long as the repair effort does not require access to on-line networks. |
| 20 | 4/3/13 | Are “Return to Repair Center” and/or onsite repair both acceptable methods of providing warranty service for OCONUS locations? | For OCONUS locations where there is OEM support, warranty can be transferred to OEM representative in host country as long as there is no cost to the government. Otherwise equipment is to be sent to the United States for repair. DOS will allow for on site repairs for equipment purchased through the GITM office as long as the repair effort does not require access to on-line networks. |
| 21 | 4/3/13 | Are the “Deployment - Value Add” questions on lines 100-102 of the Standard Desktop Tab related to deploying new units and taking advantage of OEM imaging services or lifecycle management of devices already deployed into the environment through a software tool? | The Value Add section is looking for new solutions that the Department may be able to use. |
| 22 | 4/3/13 | Does the Department of State currently have any automated monitoring or asset management system in place? If so, is there a preference for use of any specific tools to support this area? | The government does utilize an assets management system; however at this time there is no requirement for the vendor to interface with that system. |
| 23 | 4/3/13 | All Windows 8 licensing keys are provided in the bios of each unit. Would this be acceptable in place of a separate spreadsheet? | No. The requirement is for them to be listed in a spreadsheet. |
| 24 | 4/3/13 | Is the current requirement for 25,000 insertions an error? The document states 25,000, but most drives in the industry are rated at 2500-3000 insertions. If 25,000 insertions are required, what brand is your current solution? | The Removeable Drive cage has to be rated above 25,000 insertions. |
| 25 | 4/3/13 | Section 20.1.5 appears incomplete. The last sentence states “Only proposals which contain adequate information to document their responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements (e.g. a completed GPAT, VPAT or equivalent and supporting documentation)”. Is there additional language missing from this section? | Section 20.1.5 has been updated to include the following: Only proposals which contain adequate information to document their responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements (e.g. a completed GPAT and supporting documentation) will be considered for award. |
| 26 | 4/3/13 | The industry standard diagonal size for 22” class monitors (and LED panels) with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 is 21.5” diagonal. Would the State Department consider revising the diagonal size requirements to allow a full range of offerings from all vendors? | The MINIMUM threshold is a 22-inch (measured diagonally) monitor - the objective is a 24-inch (measured diagonally) monitor. |
| 27 | 4/3/13 | Can the Department of State provide a listing with the addresses of OCONUS locations? |
What countries will the contractor be required to ship? Or will all deliveries be made to locations in the United States?
| DOS will require bulk shipments to Springfield, Virginia but may also require shipments to any DOS post overseas. | |||
| 28 | 4/3/13 | Attachment A cell C8 includes a broken internet link. Will the proper documentation or link be provided? | On the RFID tag, DOS included langauge to Attachment A stating that vendor must type in web address; Since this is a locked cell, the vendor cannot cut & paste. |
| 29 | 4/3/13 | Is TAA compliance for all CLINs a requirement or a preference and will non-TAA items be accepted? | DOS will evaluate proposals for compliance with TAA in accordance with FAR Subpart 25.5. |
| 30 | 4/3/13 | CLINs 004, 005, 006, 007, and 008 appear to be stand-alone items. Is DoS requiring additional services be rendered with these CLINs such as integration into other CLINs? If so, please provide the additional services that will be needed. | These are stand alone items designed to be used as field replacements. There is no requirement for integration of these items. |
| 31 | 4/3/13 | Which CLINs will require a RFID tag (CLIN 009)? | RFID capability should be available for use on the desktops (CLIN001, CLIN002) as well as the monitor (CLIN003) only. The hard drives, carriers, NIC, PKI Reader, and adapter will not require RFID capability. Please note that not all orders will required RFID tagging. GITM requires RFID tagging to be available as a separate orderable option. |
| 32 | 4/3/13 | Is the Government requesting that documentation be supplied at the time of proposal submission? RFP REFERENCE: Attachment A – Vendor Proposed Configuration Worksheet, “General Security Requirements” and “Technical Requirements” Tabs, “Government Comments” column. |
“General Security Requirements” tab, Government Comments for Items 8 (line 21) and 11 (line 27) are “Government requests official documentation”.
“Technical Requirements” tab, Government Comments for Items 7 (line 19), 8 (line 21) and 9 (line 23) are “Government requests official documentation or URL”.
“Technical Requirements” tab, Government Comments for Item 18 (line 41) is “Government requests official certification documentation”.
“Technical Requirements” tab, Government Comments for Item 22 (line 49) is “Government requests official MSDS documentation”.
| Yes | |||
| 33 | 4/3/13 | If the Contractor must submit quotes by e-mail, would the Government please delete the requirement in RFP Section 17.5.2 for a paper copy of the Customer Satisfaction Survey? | The language in Section 17.5.2 has been updated to remove references to paper submission. See answer to Question 12 |
| 34 | 4/3/13 | Will the Government please define “Compliance Statement”? RFP Section 17.2. Organization of Volumes (i). Compliance statement, including Contractor-completed Trade Agreement Certificate”. | Section 17.2 has been updated to remove the Compliance Statement. Contractors shall submit completed Representations and Certifications as part of proposal |
| 35 | 4/3/13 | Item g requires that the “Contractor-completed Exhibit 1 – Contract Line Items and Price List” be included in the technical proposal. However, the last sentence under the organizational instructions for Volume I, Technical Proposal, state that, “The Contractor shall not submit any cost/price information in Volume I - Technical Quote.” Please delete the requirement for including Exhibit 1 in the Technical Volume. RFP Section 17.2. Organization of Volumes (g) “Contractor Completed Exhibit 1” and the last sentence. | Section 17.2 has been updated to remove Item G. |
| 36 | 4/3/13 | This specification requires “LED 22” (Measured Diagonally)…”. The industry standard diagonal measurement size for 22” class monitors with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 is 21.5” diagonal. Please modify the specification to require a 22” class monitor or to explicitly call for a 21.5” diagonal measurement for the display panel. | The MINIMUM threshold is a 22-inch (measured diagonally) monitor - the objective is a 24-inch (measured diagonally) monitor. |
| 37 | 4/3/13 | Section 20.1.2 indicates that products will be scored as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and that no weighting will be applied. Will the government please confirm that a product will be evaluated as compliant (acceptable) if it meets the “Minimum Threshold” defined for each specification? In addition, will the government please clarify how products will be evaluated that meet the Minimum Threshold and may or may not meet some or all of the “Objective” levels for the specifications? | A proposed configuration and/or item will be deemed technically acceptable if the product meets the minimum thresholds identifed in Attachment A. |
| 38 | 4/3/13 | Has this solicitation removed the GSA requirement and is now open market? | Yes. This requirement is being competed on an open market basis. |
| 39 | 4/3/13 | Microsoft licensing requirements specify that Windows 8 license keys must be encrypted and stored in the system BIOS at the factory. Microsoft no longer provides or requires COA stickers. Microsoft licensing requirements for Windows 8 further dictate that systems now come with a Genuine Microsoft Label (GML) such as the one shown below. Please revise the language of the requirement to allow for the provision of the aforementioned GML. | The GML is acceptable if it includes the OS license key printed on it. |
| 40 | 4/3/13 | The form factor and package dimensional requirements in [Std Desktop] and [Std Desktop Rem HDD] worksheets in Attachment A do not appear to be correct. The package dimensional and weight requirements necessarily have to be larger than those of the form factor (as we believe this term refers to actual housing of the computer) yet the requirements appear to be exactly the opposite. We suggest that the Government modify the “Package Dimensions” requirements as follows; which would be consistent with packaging surrounding the maximum Form Factor size specified. |
Requirement: Not to exceed: 8.5”x18.5”x20.5” (HxDxW), 22 lbs (or less)
Maximum: Not to exceed: 9.5”x19.5”x21.5” (HxDxW), 24 lbs (or less) Threshold
| DOS will not change the form factor and dimensions requirements. Increasing the unit and packing dimensions would have a negative impact on the Departments shipping cost; using today's shipping figures and the proposed larger dimensions there would be an increase of $16.20 per unit to ship. Additionally the larger size would mean a reduction in units per pallet and an increase of pallets per delivery resulting in use of additional warehouse/storage space. | ||
| 41 | 4/3/13 | Under the “Government Comments” columns in [General Security Requirement] and [Technical Requirement] worksheets in Attachment A, the following text appears: |
• “Government requests official documentation”
• “Government reserves the right to request official certificate documentation”
• “Government requests official documentation or URL”
• “Government requests official MSDS documentation”
Please clarify exactly how vendors should respond to these requirements in their proposals. Is the Government referring to documents or URL that might be required after award?
The purpose of this requirement is for the Vendor to provide all current OEM firmware and drivers for the proposed desktops. The Vendor can either provide this information via documentation, disk, or through a URL website. Also, if the Vendor is proposing a “Value Add” component, that component must be certified by the OEM and the certification should be included at the time of submission. Additionally, DOS requires that all items be EPEAT certified to at least the “silver” level as well as Energy Star Compliant. The Vendor can either provide physical documentation or supply a URL link attesting that the proposed unit meets the EPEAT and Energy Star requirement. DOS requests that the vendor provide physical documentation or a URL link stating that the proposed computing platforms are certified and listed on the Product List for Windows OS releases. All OEM components are to be certified/manufactured in accordance with ISO and industry standards. All proposed units should include a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) (either physical documentation or link to URL). This information is used when shipping the equipment overseas.
Again, all documentation, disks, and/or URL links are required to be included at the time of submission allowing DOS to check for compliance and technically acceptability.
42 4/3/13 Under row “Processor” in the [Std Desktop] and [Std Desktop Rem HDD] worksheets in Attachment A, the Government requires either (minimum threshold) the AMD A8-5500B with Radeon HD7560D graphics GPU or (objective) AMD A10-5800B with Radeon HD7660D graphics GPU.
Does the Government consider the Radeon HD 7xxx GPU embedded in the processor compliant with the requirement for “on-board or PCIe HD graphics with dedicated GPU (must support up to 256 (minimum threshold) or 512 MB (objective) of dedicated VRAM)” as required in “Video”? Or must vendors include a discrete add-on video graphics interface adapter with its own GPU and memory to comply with this requirement? Please clarify.
| DOS will accept an equivalent match. The submitter must also look at the Video range of requirements in conjunction with this: must be able to support Windows 7 Aero glass, dual monitor support with resolution configured from 1280X1024 to 1920X1080: Video ports provided on the desktop must be able to interface with the monitors being offered | |||
| 43 | 4/3/13 | Each of the CLINs in the RFP is competed on the “brand name or equal” basis. If we propose an item of the exact brand name and model specified, must we still fill out the corresponding spaces in Attachment A for the item? | Even bidding an "exact match" DOS requires the Vendor to complete the Vendor Proposed Configuration section of Attachment A to ensure compliance. |
| 44 | 4/3/13 | The “GITM-U FY13 Desktop Specifications – Version 2.1” as shown in the [Std Desktop] or [Std Desktop Rem HDD] worksheets in Attachment A include those for a PKI reader. We are assuming that the Government requires vendors to include this reader with every system. Is this a correct assumption? |
At the same time, CLIN 008 – PKI Card Reader is an independent item that can be ordered separately from the system. Is this a correct assumption?
| Correct; the requirement/expectation is that a PKI Smart Card Reader will be included as part of the configuration for each model desktop (CLIN 001 & CLIN 002), i.e. PKI Reader is to be "dropped in the box" or integrated into the desktop/keyboard itself. Additionally, there is a separate CLIN (009) for just the PKI Smart Card Reader so DoS can order just the reader. | |||
| 45 | 4/3/13 | The specifications for CLIN 004 – 2.5” Removable Hard Disk Drive appear to call for only the drive itself without any other assemblies or parts to make it a removable device. We surmise that the Department might use this CLIN to acquire additional drives to insert in the removable HDD enclosure included in CLIN 002. Please confirm that no other parts outside of the drive itself are required for CLIN 004. | These are replacement drives |
| 46 | 4/3/13 | The brand name products specified for CLINs 004, 005, and 007 (or their COTS “equal” for that matter) are all made in non-designated countries. While hard disk drive makers still maintain manufacturing facilities in TAA-compliant countries, they only build enterprise-class high-end drives there. All client HDDs available in the market today are made in non-designated countries. As for CLIN 007, Unibrain also builds their products in a non-designated country. Likewise, all of Unibrain’s competitors do so in the same country. In light of the foregoing discussion, we respectfully request that the Contracting Officer issue a ruling that the three CLINs are exempted from the TAA requirement in accordance with FAR 52.225-5 as incorporated by reference on page 18 of the RFP . It is also noteworthy that the following statement appears in every product worksheet in Attachment A. This statement appears to clearly indicate that TAA compliance is actually not required. We would appreciate further guidance from the Government concerning this matter. Please further note that we have been able to confirm with Allied Telesis that they indeed offer a version of the required 2711FX/SC fiber NIC adapter (CLIN 006) made in a TAA-compliant country. | Attachment A has been updated to remove the following language: TAA preferred. |
| 47 | 4/3/13 | The [LED Monitor (IRM)] worksheet requires an aspect ratio of 16:9. We would like to point out that no manufacturer currently offers a 22–inch LED display with a 16:9 aspect ratio. While 16:9 is a prevailing standard, it is found typically in 21.5-inch and 24-inch monitors. |
In light of the foregoing discussion, we respectfully request that the Government change the minimum threshold requirement to call for a 21.5-inch LED display. Please note that several display manufacturers advertise their 21.5-inch display as 22-inch one. However, invariably the fine print will reveal that the diagonal size of the monitor is only 21.5 inches.
| The MINIMUM threshold is a 22-inch (measured diagonally) monitor - the objective is a 24-inch (measured diagonally) monitor. | ||
| 48 | 4/3/13 | Since the Government allows for two different display sizes, 22 and 24 inches, we believe it is necessary to include two different dimensions in the [LED Monitor (IRM)] worksheet. Please also see Question 9 above for our comment on the peculiarity of the 22-inch monitor size. |
W H D Product Dimensions 21.5” Monitor (with stand): 21” 15.5” 9.5” 24” Monitor (with stand): 23” 16.6” 9.8”
Packaging Dimensions 21.5” Monitor (with stand): 24” 19” 8”(*) 24” Monitor (with stand): 26” 19” 8”(*) Note: (*) The stand will be shipped unattached to the monitor
| The requirement is a monitor between 22" and 24". That would include 23" monitors as well. If the OEM's considers a 21.5" monitor as a 22" then we will accept it | ||
| 49 | 4/3/13 | Section 6.2 – Warranty of the RFP states the Government requirements for both CONUS and OCONUS warranty. With regard to OCONUS warranty, please answer the following questions. |
• Where does the Government require vendors to pick up units returned for warranty service from an OCONUS location? Is it the facility at 8020 Grainger Court, Springfield, VA?
• Secondly, once OCONUS units have been repaired, do vendors also return them to the same address in Springfield, VA above?
We assume that the 30-day return requirement is also applicable to units returned from OCONUS locations. Is this a correct assumption?
In 6.2.e, the Government states that it might take up to 120 days for a defective item to be returned from an OCONUS location. We assume that the Government will notify vendors as soon as the defect occurs overseas to start the 120-day countdown. Is this correct? Furthermore, does the Government require vendors to extend the warranty period for the defective unit accordingly to account for the long transit time back to Springfield, VA from OCONUS locations?
It is our assumption that the Government will be responsible for transporting at its expense all defective and repaired units from CONUS and OCONUS locations to and from the facility in Springfield, VA. Is this a correct assumption?
| Due to the complex nature of shipping to/from OCONUS locations, DOS requires a 120 lead time for all warranty repairs meaning that DOS has up to 120 days to return a piece of faulty equipment for repair once the Vendor has been notified of defect. For OCONUS locations where there is OEM support, warranty can be transferred to OEM representative in host country as long as there is no cost to the government. Otherwise equipment is to be sent to the United States for repair. DOS will allow for onsite repairs for equipment purchased through the DOS office as long as the repair effort does not require access to DoS networks. Additionally, the reseller is responsible for coordination of repair efforts with the OEM. The vendor is responsible for transport to and from the Springfield, VA location; GITM/DoS is responsible for transport to and f rom OCONUS locations. | |||
| 50 | 4/3/13 | In accordance to FAR 52.211-6 – Brand Name or Equal incorporated in the RFP under 11.2 – Clause in Full Text, vendors must include “descriptive literature such as illustrations, drawings, ..” if they wish the Government to consider and evaluate their “equal” products. Should we include such literature in Volume I – Technical Quote? | Yes. |
| 51 | 4/3/13 | Section 17.5.1.1 – Worksheet Data Cells of the RFP refers to columns “Quote Specifications” and “Required Specs” in Attachment A. Please clarify that the Government is actually referring to product specifications columns such as “Desktop Specifications”, “Removable HDD Desktop Specifications”, “PKI Device (Windows) Specifications”, etc. and “Vendor Proposed” in the aforementioned attachment. | Yes. |
| 52 | 4/3/13 | Both the [Std Desktop (IRM & CA)] and [Std Desktop Rem HDD] worksheets in Attachment A list three different types of specifications. They are “Objective/Minimum Threshold”, “Requirement”, and “Value-Add.” Is it correct to assume that the first two are mandatory specification requirements while the last one is optional? Please clarify. | See answer to Question 37. |
| 53 | 4/3/13 | Please remove the following phrase from the last sentence in Paragraph 7.2 on Page 7 of the RFP since this is now an ID/IQ competition as opposed to a GSA FSS-based BPA one. |
“and in accordance with the referenced GSA FSS contract terms>”
| Section 7.2 has been updated to remove the reference to GSA FSS. | |||
| 54 | 4/3/13 | The “Processor” requirement in the [Std Desktop] or [Std Desktop Rem HDD] worksheets call for AMD A10-5800B or A8-5500B CPUs. The “B” postfix in “5800B” and “5500B” is AMD SKU designation for certain manufacturers, most notably HP. It has something to do with price support and marketing cooperative fund rebates and nothing to do with the actual technical specifications, features, functionality, and performance of the processor. Identical processors released to all other channels would be numbered “A10-5800” and “A8-5500.” We assume that the “A10-5800” and “A8-5500” (without the “B”) would be acceptable to the Government. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. | "Equivalent or better" is stated throughout the SPECS. If the processor that you are going to quote is equivalent or better to our SPECS then it will be acceptable |
| 55 | 4/3/13 | Item (g) under Section 17.2 on Page 35 of the RFP calls for the inclusion of the “contractor-completed Exhibit 1 – Contract Line Items and Price List” in Volume I – Technical Proposal. Is this an oversight? | See answer to Question 35 |
| 56 | 4/3/13 | Section 17.1 on Page 35 of the RFP requires vendors to “submit proposals by e-mail”. Yet, under 17.5.2 on Page 37, vendors are required to submit “paper copy of the Customer Satisfaction Survey”. Could the Government please address and resolve these two seemingly contradictory requirements? | See answer to Question 12 |
| 57 | 4/3/13 | Section 8.3.1 on Page 10 of the RFP states “The Government shall then place the order with the Contractor that presents the best value to the Government for that particular requirement, as stated in the order quote request.” |
The nine items to be included in the ID/IQ contracts are industry standard, commodity Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) items. Additionally, deliveries and warranty are also well defined. While we understand that it is incumbent upon acquisition officials to deliver the best value to their customer, are we correct in assuming given the commodity nature of the items that competitions for individual orders will be conducted on a technically acceptable, lowest cost basis; i.e., the bidder that provides the lowest priced product that is in technical compliance with the minimum specifications will be awarded the order? Under what scenario, does the Government foresee the need to conduct task order competition on the best value basis?
| Individual orders over $3,000 will be competed on a technically acceptable, lowest price basis in accordance with fair opportunity. | ||
| 58 | 4/3/13 | Section 17.5.2 on Page 37 of the RFP states that vendors should submit 3 Past Performance references for similar contracts awarded in the past 2 years. Section 20.1.4 on Page 41 of the RFP states that the contractor shall have performed the work in the past 2 years. |
As many contracts of similar size and scope are long-term contracts, often 5 years or longer, will the government please amend Section 17.5.2 to “work performed in the past 2 years” as opposed to “contracts awarded in the past 2 years”. This will give vendors more opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities on contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to this solicitation.
| See answer to Question 11 | |||
| 59 | 4/3/13 | Completed Exhibit 1 is listed as a component of Volume I-Technical Proposal as (g), however Volume I in 17.2 states that there are to be no cost/price information included in Volume I. Is completed Exhibit 1 to be included in Volume I or Volume II? | See answer to Question 35 |
| 60 | 4/3/13 | 17.1 Proposal Delivery states that the proposals are to be submitted by e-mail to the Contracting Officer, and 17.4 also says the format is to be electronic. However, 17.5.2 states that we are to submit Attachment B as a paper copy. Would you like Attachment B submitted only by email or are we to submit a paper copy also? Thank you. | See answer to Question 12 |
| 61 | 4/3/13 | On tab “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)”, Specification “2.5' Drive Bay”, Requirement: |
a. “Removable HDD carrier; must be rated at a minimum of 25,000 (equivalent or better) insertions and removals; must fit in the 2.5' bay” No systems have 2.5” external bays but they do have 2.5” drives that will fit 3.5” bays. Will the government change this requirement to “3.5” bay”?
| The government will accept a 2.5-inch drive if it can be modified to fit in a 3.5-inch bay as long as the bay fits inside the proposed desktop. DOS will NOT accept an external drive to fulfill this requirement | ||
| 62 | 4/3/13 | On tab “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)”, Specification “2.5' Drive Bay”, Requirement: |
a. “Removable HDD carrier; must be rated at a minimum of 25,000 (equivalent or better) insertions and removals; must fit in the 2.5' bay”
b. “Removable 2.5” 80GB(greater than or equal to) 7.2K rpm SATA II 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (equivalent or better); must support most energy efficient configuration; with SMART IV technology; HDD must fit in the removable drive carrier” Will the government accept 3.5” hard drive or is the 2.5” hard drive to be considered the primary drive?
| The government will accept a 2.5-inch drive if it can be modified to fit in a 3.5-inch bay as long as the bay fits inside the proposed desktop. DOS will NOT accept an external drive to fulfill this requirement | ||
| 63 | 4/3/13 | On tab “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)”, Specification “2.5' Drive Bay”, Requirement: |
a. “Removable HDD carrier; must be rated at a minimum of 25,000 (equivalent or better) insertions and removals; must fit in the 2.5' bay”
b. “Removable 2.5” 80GB(greater than or equal to) 7.2K rpm SATA II 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (equivalent or better); must support most energy efficient configuration; with SMART IV technology; HDD must fit in the removable drive carrier” Will the government accept a 5.25” SATA Removable Drive Enclosure that holds a 3.5” hard disk drive?
If yes will the government allow for the use of an external DVD+/-RW with this configuration?
| We will accept any drive cage and Hard drive configuration that will fit in these machines, as long as all the other requirements are met as well (i.e. DVDRW). DOS will NOT accept external drives to fulfill this requirement. | ||
| 64 | 4/3/13 | Will the government accept a 3.5” drive that meets all defined specifications? |
a. Can the government please confirm that the “2.5” Removable HDD (IRM)” or 3.5” drive (if above answered yes) will be procured to go into the “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)” systems purchased for this solicitation?
| We will accept any drive cage and Hard drive configuration that will fit in these machines, as long as all the other requirements are met as well (i.e. DVDRW). DOS will NOT accept external drives to fulfill this requirement. | ||
| 65 | 4/3/13 | Can the government please confirm that the “2.5” Removable HDD (IRM)” requires a removable drive carrier with each purchase? |
a. If yes can the government confirm that the carrier needs to be compatible with the removable drive Frame proposed on the “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)
| The drive carrier is only required with the “STD Desktop Rem HDD (IRM)" | ||
| 66 | 4/3/13 | On tab “PKI Device (windows)”, Specification “Operating System Compatibility”, Requirement: |
a. Microsoft Windows 2000 / XP , Microsoft Windows 7, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 , Microsoft Windows Server 2008 , Microsoft Windows Vista (32/64 bits) , Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition The Std Desktop (IRM & CA) and Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM) both specify windows 8 as the required operating system. The defined PKI Device will not be compatible with the operating system that is on the desktops. Will the government reduce the operating system requirement on the desktops to “Microsoft ® Windows® 7 Professional Edition (64bit) “?
| No. The requirement stands. | ||
| 67 | 4/3/13 | On tab “PKI Device (windows)”, Specification “Smart Card Clock frequency”, Requirement: |
a. 5V, 3V, and 1.8V smart cards, ISO7816 Class A, B, and C These specifications are related to “Supported Card Types” not “Smart Card Clock Frequency”. Can the government please clarify that they want “Supported Card Types” or “Smart Card Clock Frequency”.
If the answer is Smart Card Clock Frequency, can the government please change the Requirement to “Up to 8 MHz”?
You are correct. Changes are below:
Smart card type is a: SC650 Smart card Clock Frequency is: Up to 8 MHz 68 4/3/13 On tab “2.5” Removable HDD (IRM)”, Specification “OS Requirements”, Requirement:
a. Operates under Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit), Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit).
The Std Desktop (IRM & CA) and Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM) both specify windows 8 as the required operating system. The defined Hard Drive will not be compatible with the operating system that is on the desktops. Will the government reduce the operating system requirement on the desktops to “Microsoft ® Windows® 7 Professional Edition (64bit) “?
| No. The requirement stands. | ||
| 69 | 4/3/13 | On tab “3.5” Removable HDD (IRM)”, Specification “OS Requirements”, Requirement: |
a. Operates under Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit), Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit).
The Std Desktop (IRM & CA) and Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM) both specify windows 8 as the required operating system. The defined Hard Drive will not be compatible with the operating system that is on the desktops. Will the government reduce the operating system requirement on the desktops to “Microsoft ® Windows® 7 Professional Edition (64bit) “?
| No. The requirement stands. | ||
| 70 | 4/3/13 | On tab “Desktop Fiber NIC (IRM)”, Specification “OS Requirements”, Requirement: |
a. Operates under Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit), Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit).
The Std Desktop (IRM & CA) and Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM) both specify windows 8 as the required operating system. The defined Desktop Fiber NIC will not be compatible with the operating system that is on the desktops. Will the government reduce the operating system requirement on the desktops to “Microsoft ® Windows® 7 Professional Edition (64bit) “?
| No. The requirement stands. | ||
| 71 | 4/3/13 | On tab “Desktop FireWire Card (CA)”, Specification “OS Requirements”, Requirement: |
a. Operates under Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit), Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit), and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (all releases) (32-bit & 64-bit).
The Std Desktop (IRM & CA) and Std Desktop Rem HDD (IRM) both specify windows 8 as the required operating system. The defined Desktop FireWire card will not be compatible with the operating system that is on the desktops. Will the government reduce the operating system requirement on the desktops to “Microsoft ® Windows® 7 Professional Edition (64bit) “?
| No. The requirement stands. | |||
| 72 | 4/3/13 | On tab “LED 23” (IRM), will the Government accept 23” or larger monitors? | The MINIMUM threshold is a 22-inch (measured diagonally) monitor - the objective is a 24-inch (measured diagonally) monitor. DOS will accept a 23-inch solution as long as the rest of the specifications are deemed technically acceptable. |
| 73 | 4/3/13 | Section 17.5.2 – Past Performance |
a. Will the government accept the Past Performance Questionnaires that were submitted on behalf of the contractor by Government agencies from the original RFP request or do the vendors need to have them resent?
| No, the offeror will need to submit the required past performance information specified in Section 17.5.2 with its proposal. | ||
| 74 | 4/3/13 | Section 2.1 contradicts sections 3.1 and 9.2.1. |
a. Was the intention of the DoS to remove the Small Business Manufacturing requirement? Please remove the statement “Must be end product of domestic small business concern” from sections 3.1 and 9.2.1 if it is the intention to remove this requirement.
| See answer to Question 8 | ||
| 75 | 4/3/13 | On tab “Std Desktop REM HDD (IRM) |
a. Does the DoS require the 3.5” boot disk (HDD) to remain with the system or do you want it removed and replaced with the 2.5” carrier and HDD?
| Only one drive in the system. As stated in the SPEC it will be the HDD in the Removeable Carrier. | ||
| 76 | 4/3/13 | On tab “RFID Tags Partner Only”. |
a. Is it the intention of the government to have the RFID tags affixed to the individual unit or just on the outside of the box?
b. Is it the intention of the government to have UID tags or RFID tags on the individual units?
| Unit RFID tags are to be applied to the equipment and Pallet Tags to individual pallets. | ||
| 77 | 4/3/13 | Section 7.2 references GSA FSS contracting terms but this solicitation is based on Open Market. |
a. Will the government consider removing the reference to GSA FSS contracting terms in this section?
| See answer to Question 53 | ||
| 78 | 4/3/13 | Page 7 states first article testing shall be delivered within 14 calendar days but page 38, Section 18 states “delivery within 10 calendar days”. |
a. Will the government please provide the delivery timeframe required?
| The requirement for bid sample submission is ten (10) calander days from Contracting Officer notification. Upon award, the requirement for first article testing for tech refreshes will be fourteen (14) calendar days. | ||
| 79 | 4/3/13 | On page 7 Section 7.2. Place of Performance - Place of performance shall be F.O.B. Destination Continental U.S. unless otherwise mutually agreed upon at the order level by the DoS and the Contractor, and in accordance with the referenced GSA FSS contract terms. |
a. Why is there a reference to a “GSA FSS contract terms” since this is an “INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT ON OPEN MARKET BASIS” as stated in the SF1449
| See answer to Question 53 | ||
| 80 | 4/3/13 | On Tab “LED Monitor” |
a. Monitor minimum threshold is 22”, however, the industry is now providing 21.5” displays as the glass manufacturers are cutting screens to this dimension. Would the government consider revising the specification to the 21.5”
| The MINIMUM threshold is a 22-inch (measured diagonally) monitor - the objective is a 24-inch (measured diagonally) monitor. | ||
| 81 | 4/3/13 | On Tab “LED Monitor” |
a. Monitor weight requirements appear to be very low (may be for 22” displays), in order to promote fair competition, will you change the requirement to monitor only to be 11lbs and shipping to be 15lbs.
| No, the requirement was established to adhere to shipping constraints. | ||
| 82 | 4/3/13 | On Attachment D 508 GPAT for Desktop |
a. Section 1194.24 Video and multimedia products – Provision A – should not be applicable, as the specification does not include an analog display in the requirement.
| The Section 508 requirements do or do not apply to each ICT product/service regardless. So, if a particular Section 508 requirement doesn't apply to a given required ICT product/service (e.g., because the product is not analog), then (1) indicate 'na' and succinctly explain why the given requirement is purported to be 'na' (e.g., 'Product x is smaller than thirteen inches'). | ||
| 83 | 4/3/13 | On Attachment D 508 GPAT for Desktop |
a. Section 1194.24 Video and multimedia products – Provision B – should not be applicable, as the specification does not include a television tuner.
| The Section 508 requirements do or do not apply to each ICT product/service regardless. So, if a particular Section 508 requirement doesn't apply to a given required ICT product/service (e.g., because the product doesn't include a relevant tuner), then (1) indicate 'na' and succinctly explain why the given requirement is purported to be 'na' (e.g., 'Product x doesn't include the triggering tuner). | ||
| 84 | 4/3/13 | On Attachment D 508 GPAT for Desktop |
a. Section 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers – Provision C should not be applicable , as the specification does not have a requirement for biometric forms of user identification.
| The Section 508 requirements do or do not apply to each ICT product/service regardless. So, if a particular Section 508 requirement doesn't apply to a given required ICT product/service (e.g., because the product doesn't include biometric feature(s)then (1) indicate 'na' and succinctly explain why the given requirement is purported to be 'na' (e.g., 'Product x doesn't include any triggering biometric features | ||
| 85 | 4/3/13 | On Attachment E- GPAT for Monitor |
a. Section 1194.24 Video and multimedia products – Provision A – should not be applicable, as the specification does not include an analog display in the requirement.
| The Section 508 requirements do or do not apply to each ICT product/service regardless. So, if a particular Section 508 requirement doesn't apply to a given required ICT product/service (e.g., because the product is not analog), then (1) indicate 'na' and succinctly explain why the given requirement is purported to be 'na' (e.g., 'Product x is smaller than thirteen inches'). | ||
| 86 | 4/3/13 | On Attachment E 508 GPAT for Monitor |
a. Section 1194.24 Video and multimedia products – Provision B – should not be applicable, as the specification does not include a television tuner
| The Section 508 requirements do or do not apply to each ICT product/service regardless. So, if a particular Section 508 requirement doesn't apply to a given required ICT product/service (e.g., because the product doesn't include a relevant tuner), then (1) indicate 'na' and succinctly explain why the given requirement is purported to be 'na' (e.g., 'Product x doesn't include the triggering tuner). | ||
| 87 | 4/3/13 | On Page 18 , Item (41) 52.225–5 , Trade Agreements |
a. The referenced clause is checked indicating that it incorporated into this RFP, there appears to be a conflict with the items in the Attachment-A Configuration worksheet, under the compliance requirement which state “TAA compliant preferred”. IS TAA a requirement of this solicitation?
| See answer to Questions 29 and 46 | |||
| 88 | 4/3/13 | Would Dept of State be willing to allow the Vendor to use their MS Licensing Contract to obtain better pricing? | No. The Department of State needs an OEM Microsoft License on each PC in order for their Microsoft Enterprise Licensing to be valid. |
| 89 | 4/3/13 | 17.2 Organization of Values, Volume I- Technical Proposal |
(c) Contractor Completed Attachment B- Past Performance Customer Satisfaction Survey
(d) Contractor Completed Attcahment C- Similar Experience Contract Profile Both indicate Contractor Completed. However, on the bottom of the actual Attachment B it clearly indicates for the customer to email directly to Michael Dickson. Please clarify this. If the customer sends this directly to you how would we have a copy to include with our submission
| In accordance with Section 17.5.2, offerors shall complete only the top portion of Attachment B and return that document with their electronic proposal. DOS will then contact the references directly to obtain past performance information. In addition, offerors shall complete Attachment C in its entirety and submit that document with their electronic proposal. | |||
| 90 | 4/3/13 | Would Dept of State be willing to extend the due date of the bid? | Please see amendment extending the due date. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .