Consolidated_DLA_Responses_to_Vendor_Quesitons.pdf

SP7000‐16‐R‐1004 Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 1 of 3

1. As per the following Q&A, we understand that the proposed solutions must meet or exceed these requirements.

Question from Vendor: Please confirm that offered solutions which exceed the requirements specified (example: size, speed, memory, etc.) are always considered acceptable. For example, "Scan Speed Color: Up to 15 cm/sec (6 in/sec)" for 44" printer, can an offeror's solution offer a scan speed greater than 15 cm/sec or does it have to be 15cm/sec or less?

Response from DLA: Offered solutions that meet or exceed the requirements are acceptable.

However, the SOWs for 42" Printer, under Scan & Copy function, the Government has mentioned "Maximum Scan Width 42 in". Now if we consider it minimum as per Q&A, a solution exceeding this requirement should be a scanner with Scan Width of 42 in or less. Can you please clarify if a scanner with scan width greater than 42" (say 44 in scan width) is acceptable or not?

Response:

Offered solutions that meet or exceed the requirements are acceptable. In the example cited, a scanner with the scan width greater than 42” exceeds the requirement and is acceptable.

2. We would like to know if the Government would like offerors to submit solutions/products (model number, solution configuration etc.) to include datasheets with its proposal? If Government would like that information, we ask that the RFP be clarified to include this. We also request the Government to extend the proposal due date to give all offerors reasonable amount of time to gather all such information.

Response:

Yes, offerors must provide device data sheets for all proposed devices for each Volume Band. The data sheets must show compliance for each specification/requirement included in the SOWs.

3. If such information is required, we have some more clarification questions (we request the Government to also consider our previously submitted question whether a 44 inch scanner is acceptable for 42" inch scanner requirement.):

Yes, a 44” scanner is acceptable for the 42” scanner requirement. This exceeds the requirement.

4. Please confirm if the Government needs datasheets? The Instructions to Offeror's (ITO) in the RFP did not require datasheets.

Response:

Yes, offerors must provide device data sheets for all proposed devices for each Volume Band. The data sheets must show compliance for each specification/requirement included in the SOWs.

5. Does every single point (requirement) need to be verified by technical specification documents?

For example, some of the requirements were not found by Akira in the published technical specs but then verified via email with the OEM.

SP7000‐16‐R‐1004 Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 2 of 3

Yes, every requirement must be verified by technical specification documents.

6. If every requirement must be verifiable, will you accept copies of the emails from the OEMs?

Compliance verified by OEMs must be on official letterhead stating the specifications being addressed. The OEM letter must include the POC’s phone number and email address for verification purposes. OEM device whitepapers are also acceptable. .

7. Would the Government accept a signed letter by the OEM stating that the product meets or exceeds those technical requirements?

Response:

Yes, signed OEM letters are acceptable, but must specifically state the technical requirements being addressed. A general OEM letter stating overall compliance without technical requirements cited is not acceptable.

8. Would the Government accept website links to OEM website(s) showing compliance with requirements?

Response:

Yes, OEM website links are acceptable, but must include a copy of the page showing compliance with the requirements. All links will be reviewed.

9. Would the Government accept website links to third parties/distributors (like CDWG) websites showing compliance with requirements?

No.

10. The specifications for the “scanners” is requiring: (AES‐256 encrypted, FIPS 140‐2 Level 2 certified) on hard drives. While we are good with this requirement on the plotters, scanners are not built to retain information and the scanner industry does not have a need for encryption and we cannot find one that meets the requirement. Would DLA consider removing this requirement for the scanners?

The AES‐256 encrypted, FIPS 140‐2 Level 2 certified hard drive requirement for the scanner has been removed.

11. Given some, if not most, of this equipment will likely be going on DoD networks that require TAA compliant only equipment would the government have a preference for TAA compliant products where available?

TAA compliant equipment is not required.

12. If two devices were available meeting the specifications one which is TAA compliant and one which is not, would the Government prefer TAA offering?

SP7000‐16‐R‐1004 Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 3 of 3

TAA compliant equipment is not required.

13. After surveying the market place we have found that there are plotters with encrypted Hard Drive (HD) but no device on the marketplace has an encrypted HD for the scanner component including HP. furthermore there are devices which are encrypted, however this does not include the hard drive. Can the Government remove the requirement for encrypted hard drive for the scanner component?

Response:

The AES‐256 encrypted, FIPS 140‐2 Level 2 certified hard drive requirement for the scanner has been removed