2014-07-10_ECP_AMEND_002_INDUSTRY_QUESTIONS_DOS_ANSWERS.docx

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS & DOS ANSWERS

RFP SAQMMA14R0308, Amendment 001

DOS RESPONSES (A)

P1

Q: The Answers to Questions (I12, I45, O1...) talk about 10 additional paged being added to total page count of Vol-1. However, the page limits for Vol - 1 TAB A/B/C are unchanged in the new Section L. Please advise where the additional 10 pages are added and/or where the Solution Overview and Executive Summary be added (Tab A/B or C).

A: RFP section L.2 is revised in Amendment 002 to add 10 pages to the page count in Volume I for Solutions Overview and Executive Summary.

A: Yes, Section L paragraph L.2.3.2 is revised in Amendment 002.

Q1

Q: Will the government please clarify the inconsistency in the answer to G39 which states “A: There is no required or preferred number. Offerors (and its 2 largest subcontractors) may submit as many past performance references as are relevant to this acquisition.”, the answer to K3 which states “A: RFP section L.2.4.1, Tab A, concerns corporate experience. Three each corporate experience summaries from the Offeror and its two largest subcontractors (3 ea.) equaling nine total are required.” and I5, I6, and J30 which states “A: Three each corporate experience summaries from the Offeror and its two largest subcontractors (3 ea.) equals nine total.”

A: There is no inconsistency in the answers or the RFP. The evaluation factor ‘Corporate Experience and Past Performance’ consists of 2 subfactors as described in RFP section L.2.4. For the Corporate Experience subfactor, offerors are instructed to provide “corporate experience information on the three most recent contracts (commercial and/or government) on which they have performed which are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this acquisition“ for a total of 9 corporate experience descriptions for Tab A. For the Past Performance Information subfactor, the responses to the Past Performance Survey (PPS) for the Offeror and its 2 largest subcontractors will be evaluated, with no limitation to the number of PPS references that any offeror and its subcontractors (2 largest) may submit under Tab B.

Q2

Q: The Government’s responses to industry questions and Amendment 1 include changes to the proposal instructions, technical solution, pricing as well as clarification on the requirements for past performance citations. Respectfully request a two-week extension to provide bidders with the opportunity to revise their proposals to meet the Government’s requirements and comply with Amendment 1.

A: Proposal due date is extended to July 15, 2014, 15:00, in Amendment 002.

Q3

Q: Answer to Question A16 indicates a relaxing of tiered storage requirements for DDC solutions. However, the updated SOW in amendment 1 still contains the requirements for specific tiered storage (storage table SOW 4.2.3). Can the government please clarify if a two tiered solution with equivalent performance will be acceptable?

A: No, the requirement for the three tier storage remains as stated in the RFP.

Q4

Q: Is it acceptable to the government if the contractor provides 5 years maintenance on the hardware components, rather than 8 years?

A: Maintenance is not requested in the RFP; however, SOW Section 5.7, Warranties, and 8.8, Extended Equipment Warranty, address warranty requirements and timeframes. SOW Section 8.8 is revised in Amendment 002.

Q5

Q: Will the government please clarify the requirement to support FC and iSCSI? This is not technically supported by VMware and vendors…will not support dual connectivity (iSCSI and FC) to LUN A or LUN B on the same array. Recommend the government require support of either FC OR iSCSI (with full swapability between the two protocols with no changes or interruption to the data on disk – i.e. not to be used concurrently).

A: One technology will be used at a time; however, all technologies have to be supported by the storage system. SOW Section 4.1.4 is revised in Amendment 002.

A: None of the requirements listed in Section 4.3.9 contain SBU or Classified information. Therefore, no pre-shipping work must be completed in a SCIF or equivalent. However, if optional tasking is ordered in the future for the requirements in SOW Section 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, and the ECP equipment is installed on a classified network, the Offeror will then be required to install ECP equipment in a classified facility (post-shipment).

R1

Q: In the Q&As that were released yesterday, it is stated in the answer to question I12) that "Section L, Paragraph L.2, Volume I has been revised to allow for an overview of your technical approach and solution." However, in the revised Section L & M document (released yesterday) there is no additional pages allowed for a overview of our technical approach and solution. Please clarify if a revised Section L & M document will be released allowing for additional pages.

A: RFP section L.2 is revised in Amendment 002 to add 10 pages to the page count in Volume I for Solutions Overview and Executive Summary.