Attachment_1_-_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.pdf

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 1 of 6

Responses to Solicitation Questions

1. In Response to Question 6 of Amendment 3: If the device that is being tested cannot have its NGEN certified testing issue resolved, may offerors suggest a new device that will pass the test?

Is a permitted resolution method to change the device being tested, entirely, with a different device, model, or OEM? Or must resolution occur with the original device that was bid?

Answer: All proposed devices will be evaluated for technical acceptance during the proposal evaluation stage. Therefore, if a proposed device fails testing and certification, the vendor will not be allowed to propose a replacement device for testing and certification.

2. I see the submittal date has been pushed for Dec 30th at 4;pm is this correct?

Answer: The solicitation close date/time was revised to 12/30/16 by 4 PM EST. Amendment 4 revised the solicitation close date/time to 01/13/17 by 4 PM. Please continue to monitor the Federal Business Opportunities Website (www.fbo.gov) for any changes.

3. Amendment 2 added Attachment 5 –DLA Device Manufacturer Questionnaire. The title of this document is “Device Manufacturer Questionnaire – DLA Document Services MFD Certification”.

Please confirm that this questionnaire applies to printers only and is not required for manufacturers of scanners. If this is correct, does DLA still want a Manufacturer Product Compliance Letter confirming their scanners being offered are technically compliant with the RFP specifications given in SOW 1 and SOW 3?

Answer: The DLA Device Manufacturer Questionnaire is a reference document provided for this solicitation. The vendor that is awarded the contract must complete this questionnaire and submit it to DLA prior to device testing. The DLA Device Manufacturer Questionnaire is applicable to all proposed devices even though the title in the document states “MFD Certification.” However, depending on the device, some questions may not be applicable and the response should be noted as “NA.” Device data sheets or signed OEM letters verifying the technical compliance for all proposed devices are still required.

4. Previously I was of the understanding that we needed to provide specification sheets from the manufacturer that detailed that every item on the Statement of Work was being adhered to, and if anything did not appear on their spec sheet, we would need a letter confirming that that item i.e. 'energy star compliance' was being met.

Or, does the Device Manufacturer Questionnaire now negate what was first required above?

Answer: The DLA Device Manufacturer Questionnaire is a reference document provided for this solicitation. The vendor that is awarded the contract must complete this questionnaire and submit it to DLA prior to device testing. The questionnaire does not negate providing documented compliance of the proposed device requirements because these documents will be used during the technical evaluation.

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 2 of 6

5. “Attachment_5_‐_DLA_Device_Manufacturer_Questionnaire_”, please confirm that this form needs to be submitted with our proposal. If yes, then

(a) Do we need to fill it for each device that we bid for CLINs for non‐certified scanners?

(b) Do we need to fill it for each device that we bid for CLINs for certified scanners?

(c) Do we need to fill it for each device that we bid for CLINs for non‐certified printers?

(d) Do we need to fill it for each device that we bid for CLINs for certified printers?

Answer: The DLA Device Manufacturer Questionnaire does not have to be submitted with the proposal. This document is provided for reference only. The vendor that is awarded the contract will have to complete and submit this document to DLA, prior to device testing.

6. “Attachment_4_‐_DLA_Doc_Svcs_Testing_Checklist”, this attachment seems relevant to MFDs, can you please elaborate how does this apply to Certified Scanners?

Answer: The DLA Doc Svcs Testing Checklist is applicable to MFDs and network printers only.

7. Please confirm that offerors are required to show compliance with only the numbered technical requirements that is for SOWs for scanners, compliance with the requirements in sections 1.1 to

1.1.3 and for SOWs for printers, compliance with sections 1.1 to 1.1.10?

Answer: Device data sheets or signed OEM letters verifying the technical compliance for all proposed devices are required for Items 1.1 through 1.1.10 for the Scanner SOWs, and for Items

1.1 through 1.1.3 for the Printers SOWs.

8. “The SOWs state “Cards: 90 lb index or similar.” The GSM for 90 lb index is about 165, and the GSM for 80 lb cover is about 215. Therefore, 80 lb cover exceeds the requirement and is acceptable.” The answer from the Government suggests that 80 lb cover is acceptable, can the Government please revise SOW to reflect the changes? Also, as per a standard convertor we used, 80 lbs is equivalent to GSM Text 133.2 and Cover = 243.72 while for 90 lbs Text = 118.4 and Cover = 216.64. Can the government please review the equivalency.

Answer: 80 lb cover is acceptable because it exceeds the GSM of 90 lb index, so the SOW does not have to be updated because it is similar. The specification for the text weight paper is standard 20 lb bond, and any text weight paper that exceeds the GSM is acceptable.

9. As per the Government, Devices must be listed on either of the following two sites:

https://www.niap‐ccevs.org/Product/ https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/products/

(a) Please confirm that applies to Certified Scanners in addition to MFDs?

(b) Can the Government provide an example of a scanner (not MFD) listed on any of the two websites?

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 3 of 6

Answer: The 2 websites cited is only applicable to MFDs and network printers.

10. As regards the certification process for printers and scanners in the SOWs, (Section 1.1.11 of the certified scanner SOW and Section 1.1.4 of the certified printer SOW), each of the SOWs states that DLA will perform internal testing of the devices, and after its own internal testing of a device will submit the device for certification by PMW 205. However, if PMW 205 declines to certify a device "for any reason," DLA will "terminate the contract for default."

In Question 20b, Amendment 2, DLA appears to describe its concerns regarding PMW 205's certification requirements. The question was "to not risk cancellation for cause, what are the requirements for a device to meet the PMW 205 testing" and DLA's answer was that devices must "pass an ACAS scan (Drivers and devices), be STIG Compliant, and have all of the ports and protocols associated and listed in the DOD registry."

This suggests that DLA's specific concern is that a contractor may submit devices that pass DLA's internal testing, but do not meet the three technical requirements of PMW 205 testing.

However, the language of the SOW does not incorporate that specific technical concern. The language of the SOW broadly mandates that DLA will terminate for cause if the device does not meet PMW 205 testing "for any reason."

Hypothetically, a device could meet DLA testing and not meet PMW 205 testing for any one of a number of reasons that are unrelated to the device itself, or to the contractor's performance of the contract. For example, each of the following situations, all of which are out of the control of DLA and the contractor, could result in a DLA internal test success and then a PMW 205 certification failure:

a) An update to the NMCI network which invalidates the current DEV403 document.

Amendment 2, Attachment 7, Section 1.7, Table 4, No. 3

b) Unforseeable changes in network architecture, conditions or otherwise. Amendment 2, Attachment 7, Section 1,7,Table 4, No. 18.

b) Shipment of the Hardware before the creation of an approved Task Order. Amendment 2, Attachment 7, Section 1.7, Table 4, Task Order No. 21

c) Fedex shipment failure if the drivers and enabling software are 2GB and larger. Amendment 2, Attachment 7, Section 1.7, Table 4, No. 30

d) Failure of the government testing project manager to create a "CLIN x49" to start the testing project.

Each of the following examples, not specifically identified in the certification test process, could also result in a PMW 205 certification failure:

a) Damage to the device by the shipper in the process of shipping the device to HP for testing.

b) A lack of funding, termination, or other interruption of the test contractor's contract or services.

c) Failure or poor performance of the certification testing team in testing the device.

d) The certification testing team receives the device and then loses it

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 4 of 6

Finally, the certification testing protocol explicitly states that the certification testing is not subject to a Service Level Requirement, meaning that the certification testing contractor is not required to provide a minimum standard of testing. See Amendment 2, Attachment 7, Section

1.3 and Section 3

These hypotheticals range from unlikely to almost impossible. Nevertheless, the severity of DLA's response if any of these scenarios occurred warrants a closer look at the solicitation language. If any of these hypothetical events occurs, or if any other event occurs that is outside of DLA and the contractor's control but which causes the device to fail PMW 205 testing, an awardee's contract would be terminated for default, resulting in an immediate and potentially catastrophic negative impact on the awardee's business.

With all of that in mind, will DLA consider modifying the extremely harsh "termination for default" provision in one or a combination of the following ways:

a) make the clause a termination for convenience

b) narrow the grounds for termination from "for any reason" to specific technical failures that would not be identified in DLA's internal testing, but would be identified in PMW 205's testing

c) allow for a certification denial that is outside the contractor's control without requiring a default termination of the entire contract

d) create remediation language that might allow for one or a pre‐determined number of certification denials without default termination while requiring the contractor to address deficiencies in its offering that may have led to the certification denial

e) any other modification to the clause that does not place the contractor at risk of a default termination of the entire contract resulting from circumstances beyond the contractor's control (the "for any reason" language)

Answer: The termination statement was taken out of the SOW’s because any termination deemed necessary by the Government will be covered by the terms and conditions set forth in

FAR 52.212‐4.

11. FAR 12.403(c) requires that before a Contracting Officer can terminate a commercial items contract for default, the CO must send the contractor a cure notice, and allow that contractor an opportunity to cure a deficiency if the alleged default is "for any reason other than for late delivery."

That seems to contradict the clause in the certification SOWs that states that DLA will terminate the contract for default immediately if a printer or a scanner does not pass PMW 205 certification.

Will DLA consider modifying the termination for default language in the certification SOWs (1.1.4 in the printer SOW and 1.1.11 in the scanner SOW) to bring it in line with the requirements of FAR 12.403(c), or will DLA consider removing that language and replacing it with something that complies with the FAR 12.403(c) requirements of notice and an opportunity to cure prior to default termination?

Answer: The termination statement was taken out of the SOW’s because any termination

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 5 of 6

12. FAR 49.101 as it has been interpreted by the contract boards and Court of Federal Claims to apply to Commercial Items contracts among others requires that a contracting officer must make an independent determination at the time a termination for default is being considered that a termination for default is in the "best interests of the government." Because a termination for default is such a harsh act, with huge consequences for a contractor, the contracting officer cannot delegate or "abdicate" the responsibility to evaluate the situation his or herself, independently, and at the time termination is being considered.

The certification SOW clauses that mandate immediate default termination in the event a scanner or printer fails PMW 205 certification testing seem to be a delegation or abdication of the CO's independence, by giving the CO no future discretion to determine if such termination is "in the best interests of the government"

Will DLA consider removing or modifying that "termination for default" language in Sections

1.1.4 and 1.1.11 of the certified equipment SOWs to ensure that if as a result of a certification testing failure a termination for default is being considered that the Contracting Officer has the freedom to exercise his or her independent judgment, after considering all the facts available at the time of the termination, as to whether that proposed termination is "in the best interests of the government."

Answer: The termination statement was taken out of the SOW’s because any termination

13. If NIAP certification is not required for the Certified Scanners, is it necessary to have two categories for the scanners?

If all the scanners, certified and non‐certified will be set up as local attached devices that would negate the reason for two categories.

Answer: All devices (including scanners) will go through testing by DLA even though they may not have to go through NGEN/NMCI and ONENET testing and certification.

14. SOW 4 states “with CAC authentication capability.” The price sheet, CLIN 0203, additional PKI/CAC Reader. Should the CAC reader be incorporated into the price of the machine? Or will the CAC Reader itself be purchased separately like the toner cartridges?

Answer: The CAC reader should be incorporated with the price of the device. The CLIN for the CAC reader is for additional PKI/CAC Reader purchases.

SP7000‐17‐R‐1002 Attachment 1 – Responses to Solicitation Questions Page 6 of 6

15. If a model goes end‐of‐life (EOL) during the 5‐year term of the contract, we understand that the same process for testing and certification would occur, but what are the requirements for changes in price? For example, if the MSRP of the replacement product is higher than the MSRP of the original device that has gone EOL, would a new price for the replacement device be permitted?

Answer: For an end‐of‐life device, vendors will have to honor the awarded price for any replacement device.