JPL RFI ST-2641-02262026 EEHS Questions and Answers 19Mar2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- ST-2641-02262026
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers file addressing inquiries from prospective vendors regarding JPL's Enterprise Endpoint Hardware Services (EEHS) Request for Information (RFI) released on February 26, 2026. The Q&A clarifies scope, pricing requirements, technical specifications, and procurement structure for this planned hardware-as-a-service initiative.
JPL seeks to transition from a leasing model to a Device-as-a-Service (DaaS) model for approximately 7,250 new endpoint devices plus assumption of approximately 7,000-8,000 legacy assets valued at approximately $5 million. The fixed-price fleet includes 6,000 Windows units and 250 Linux (RHEL) units, while Apple device acquisition will operate on a flexible, on-demand model using MacBook Pro 14" with M5 10-core processor, 24GB RAM, and 1TB SSD. Rough order of magnitude pricing is required at the RFI stage. JPL operates on a 4-year refresh cycle (with 3- and 5-year options under consideration), with two-week delivery timelines expected between order and delivery. The anticipated contract value is $200-$250 million over 10 years, with RFP release expected in the May-July 2026 timeframe and award anticipated in mid-2027. The incumbent contractor is ManTech, and the EEHS contractor must acquire existing hardware assets from ManTech at the predetermined Asset Transition Value and incorporate costs into monthly service pricing. Apple devices are mandatory, representing approximately 40% of JPL's computer population, while TAA compliance is preferred but not required. The procurement will be awarded to a single vendor, with teaming and subcontracting permitted. All personnel must be U.S. persons, facilities must have strong physical security controls, and all support personnel handling JPL data must be badged and onboarded. Supply Chain Risk Management assessment is mandatory for all vendors. Small business participation is encouraged, with JPL considering revised NAICS codes (541519 with IT VAR exception or 541413) to better align with industry standards. Separate EEHS and Enterprise Endpoint Support Services (EESS) contracts will be awarded, with expectations for the two contractors to form a joint operating agreement, though specific coordination details remain under development. The EEHS contractor is responsible for hardware procurement, repair/replacement services, warehousing, logistics, asset tagging, imaging delivery to EESS staging facilities, and lifecycle management of devices through their end-of-life, including secure data sanitization and decommissioning. Payment terms are Net 30, with no minimum on-hand inventory required as long as delivery SLAs are met. Remote warehousing facilities are acceptable if deployment speed requirements are satisfied.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| JPL EEHS RFI ST-2641-02262026 Addendum 1.pdf | ||
| JPL EEHS RFI ST-2641-02262026 EM.docx | DOCX document |
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
Webinar Questions JPL Enterprise Endpoint Hardware Services (EEHS) Q&A Webinar Questions
Disclaimer There is no commitment or guarantee on the part of JPL to move forward with a Request for Proposal (RFP) at this time. While JPL makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written responses to these questions, the RFP and associated documentation is the standard by which all proposals will be evaluated. JPL makes no assurances that the RFP will align 100% with these responses.
| Question | Answer | Submitted by | Company | Date Received | |
| Will JPL consider revising the NAICS code to 541519, including the ITVAR exception for small businesses? | JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. | ||||
| Is the $37M revenue threshold a strict requirement? | The $37M threshold is the SBA Size Standard for this procurement's NAICS code. In order to be considered a small business for this procurement, your company's annual receipts must be under $37M in average annual receipts over the past five years. More information can be found on the SBA website (https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-guide/size-standards) | ||||
| Must vendors respond to the RFI in order to be eligible to participate in the RFP? | No, vendors do not need to respond to the RFI to be eligible for the RFP. However, the JPL Small Business Programs Office is looking for enough responses to the RFI from qualified small business to determine a set-aside option. | ||||
| Will JPL permit vendor partnerships and the use of subcontractors, including commercial partners? | Yes, teaming is acceptable. | ||||
| Are Contractor Teaming Agreements (CTAs) allowable under this procurement? | Yes, team is acceptable although we're not vetting the terms and conditions of CTAs at this tme | ||||
| If bidding as a prime, can vendors subcontract components such as Apple hardware? | Yes. | ||||
| Does JPL anticipate awarding the hardware and service components to a single vendor, or will they be awarded separately? | The Enterprise Endpoint Hardware Services (EEHS) and Enterprise Endpoint Support Services (EESS) contracts will each be awarded to a single vendor. However, this does not preclude the possibility that the same vendor could be awarded both contracts. | ||||
| Will JPL consider conducting this procurement through the NASA SEWP contract vehicle? | At this time, no. JPL will review the RFI responses and make considerations after. | ||||
| Will partial responses be accepted (e.g., providing PCs but not Apple devices)? | Partial responses will be accepted for the RFI. For the RFP selection, JPL will be looking at total capabilities, and submitting a partial bid may put your company at a competitve disadvantage. | ||||
| Is this opportunity intended to follow a Device-as-a-Service (DaaS) model, or is JPL seeking a more traditional hardware-plus-services approach? | JPL is planning to transition our PC procurement approach to a device-as-a-service model. We currently use a leasing model and are looking to move away from that structure. | ||||
| Is pricing required at the RFI stage? | Yes, Rough order of Magnitude | ||||
| Are all hardware assets required to be TAA compliant? | TAA compliance is preferred, but is currently not a hard requirement. All hardware is required to go through SCRM to ensure that everything we procure comes from a trusted source. TAA compliance further strengthens that assurance. | ||||
| Are ruggedized devices needed for any portion of the user base? | No. | ||||
| Will accessories (monitors, keyboards, mice, docking stations, etc.) be needed? | No. This procurement will solely be for the hardware itself. | ||||
| Can JPL provide specifications or preferred configurations for MacBook Pro devices? | For the ROM, you may use a 14" Macbook Pro with M5 10 core, 24GB RAM, and a 1TB SSD. Please specifiy in your response that this is the configuration you used. | ||||
| Should Apple equipment be sourced through an authorized Apple reseller, or will distributors be acceptable? | Apple equipment can be sourced through any authorized distributor. The subcontractor does not need to be an authorized Apple reseller themselves. | ||||
| Is JPL expecting a standardized OEM platform, or is a multi-OEM solution acceptable? | Either option is acceptable. | ||||
| If OEM part numbers change over time, will equivalent or better replacements be allowed? | Yes. | ||||
| Will devices need permanent external identification, such as etching or UV printing? | Devices will need an ID marker. | ||||
| For Windows and mac OS devices, does JPL prefer zero-touch deployment (Autopilot/Intune/JAMF) or vendor-configured devices delivered ready for use? | Zero touch is expected, but the exact solution will be determed by the EESS conctractor. | ||||
| Can JPL claify any required processes for imaging and deploying Linux/Unix systems? | JPL is looking to the subcontractor for a solution. | ||||
| Are service level agreements (SLAs) expected to differ by device type (PC, workstation, Mac, Linux) or by user division? | JPL would like consistent SLAs, but that is negotiable. | ||||
| Is JPL requiring a local warehouse, or would a remote facility be acceptable if it meets deployment speed requirements? | A remote facility is acceptable, as long as the subcontractor can fulfull the delivery requirements. | ||||
| Is there a defined proximity requirement for storage and staging locations? | There are no proximity requirements. | ||||
| Will the vendor be required to maintain a continuous inventory of devices for immediate deployment? | We will not require the vendor to maintain any minimum on-hand inventory. Our focus will be on meeting the agreed-upon delivery SLAs. | ||||
| What delivery timelines does JPL expect? | About two weeks between order an delivery. | ||||
| Should EEHS deliver to an EESS staging site or directly to another designated JPL receiving location? | The specific coordination details are still being defined. | ||||
| How will transition planning and user communication be handled during the cutover? | The specific details are still being defined. | ||||
| Will the contract follow the lifecycle timing of current devices, or is a full refresh anticipated? | We operate on a rolling refresh lifecycle. As part of the transition to the new contract, the expectation is that the vendor would take over the remaining in-lifecycle systems from the incumbent and incorporate them into the new subcontract. | ||||
| Does JPL expect a 3‑year or 5‑year lifecycle on managed devices? | JPL is currently on a 4-year refresh cycle. | ||||
| Should vendor proposals include manufacturer 24x7 NBD onsite warranty and accidental damage coverage for the maximum available term? | We expect all repairs to be provided to JPL at no cost. Whether the vendor obtains a warranty from the manufacturer is their decision and does not affect JPL. | ||||
| Does “full warranty” imply that accidental damage protection must be included? | Yes. | ||||
| Who is responsible for decommissioning and removing existing legacy hardware? | We operate on a rolling refresh lifecycle. As part of the transition to the new contract, the expectation is that the vendor would take over the remaining in-lifecycle systems from the incumbent and incorporate them into the new subcontract. | ||||
| Can JPL confirm the quantity and device types included within the approximately 7,000 legacy systems? | It is a mixed environment with a wide range of device types. Part of the goal of this effort is to transition toward a more standardized environment. | ||||
| What warranty or SLA expectations apply to legacy equipment? | We expect all repairs to be provided to JPL at no cost. Whether the vendor obtains a warranty from the manufacturer is their decision and does not affect JPL. | ||||
| Can JPL clearly define the division of responsibilities between EEHS and EESS, including: |
BIOS/firmware configuration OS imaging and deployment Autopilot/Intune/JAMF enrollment Asset tagging and encryption
| Quality assurance validation | Those details will be reviewed and considered for the RFP. | |
| For break/fix and maintenance activities, which contractor is expected to perform these functions? | Determining the appropriate support model will require clarification between the EEHS and EESS subcontractors. Hardware failures that require repair or replacement should be handled by EEHS, while minor adjustments might be more appropriate for EESS. Since EEHS owns the hardware, it is up the the EEHS vendor what level of support they want to allow. | |
| How should the EEHS and EESS providers coordinate operationally and logistically on a day-to-day basis? | The specific daily coordination details are still being defined, so we cannot provide a finalized model at this time. Broadly, EEHS will focus on hardware and lifecycle logistics (including warehouseing procurements), while EESS will provide end-und user support as the on-site operational presence. The relationship model between the two services is still under development. | |
| Are any security clearances such as Top Secret required for personnel? | No. | |
| Are support personnel required to be U.S. citizens? | All support personnel are required to be U.S. persons (U.S. citizens or Permanent Residents) | |
| What CMMC level will be required for this contract? | CMMC is not yet a formal requirement, however level 2 may be required in the future | |
| Must the vendor comply with NIST 800‑171 or any additional DoD‑aligned cybersecurity standards? | NIST 800-171 is currently not a requirement, but may be in the future. | |
| Are Net30 payment terms acceptable for a Device‑as‑a‑Service agreement? | Yes. | |
| Is there a minimum device volume required to qualify for Net30? | This contract provides continuous services, and hardware items are procured on demand. Previous payments should have no impact on current deliveries. | |
| Can shipments be released on a rolling basis as outstanding Net30 invoices are satisfied? | This contract provides continuous services, and hardware items are procured on demand. Previous payments should have no impact on current deliveries. | |
| When does JPL anticipate releasing the RFP? | Mid-2026 (likely May-July timeframe) | |
| When is the award expected? | Mid 2027 | |
| Will there be an updated or revised RFI issued prior to the response deadline? | No. | |
| What is the anticipated size, value, and scope of this procurement? | The anticipated value is between $200-$250M over 10 years. | |
| How will the ATV be determined? | The ATV is calculated based on the remaining value of the currently leased devices. All equipment was leased on a 3‑ to 4‑year cycle, and the original cost is divided over 36–48 months. The value remaining at the time of transition is the ATV. Based on current estimates, the ATV is approximately $5 million. At transition, the awarded contractor will need to acquire this $5 million asset value from ManTech and incorporate it into their new program strategy. | |
| Where does the hardware provisioning responsibility end and managed services begin? | The EESS contractor is responsible for all device software support, as well as the physical handling of the hardware, including pickup, drop-off, and basic troubleshooting. If a device requires repair or replacement beyond basic support, responsibility shifts to the hardware contractor. The specific coordination details are still being determined. | |
| How will imaging requirements for Linux/Unix devices be handled? | JPL is looking to the subcontractor for a solution. | |
| What is JPL’s preference for employee transition and onboarding during turnover? | The physical transition will be the EESS subcontractor. The EEHS subcontractor's responsibility is to ensure the hardware is delivered in a timely manner. | |
| Are Apple devices mandatory, or are alternative platforms acceptable? | ||
| Apple devices are mandatory. Around 40% of JPL's computer population are Apple. |
Written Questions JPL Enterprise Endpoint Hardware Services (EEHS) Q&A Written Questions
Disclaimer There is no commitment or guarantee on the part of JPL to move forward with a Request for Proposal (RFP) at this time. While JPL makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written responses to these questions, the RFP and associated documentation is the standard by which all proposals will be evaluated. JPL makes no assurances that the RFP will align 100% with these responses.
| Question | SCM Response |
| Scope of Lifecycle Services - Does the EEHS scope contemplate endpoint refresh and end-of-life disposition services (e.g., secure media sanitization, IT asset disposition, and certified destruction) as part of the enterprise lifecycle? | Yes |
| Current Disposition Approach - How is JPL currently addressing secure media sanitization and environmentally compliant device disposition for end-user hardware? | Disposition is handled by the incumbent subcontrator. |
| Small Business Participation - Will small businesses be considered for specialized lifecycle functions such as secure IT asset disposition, either as primes or in support of an integrated EEHS solution? | Yes |
| Will JPL accept a teaming arrangement under a small business prime? | Teaming arrangements are acceptable. |
| Is co-prime allowed? | Yes |
| Is legacy ATV assumption mandatory or negotiable? | Mandatory |
| Does JPL require vendor-owned warehousing or allow certified 3PL partnerships? | 3PL is allowed |
| Is device OEM standardization preferred? | Preferred, but not required. |
| What is the expected PO average amount for each hardware order, ie: greater than 200k? | This is intended to be priced as a service to JPL. The size and timing of the vendor POs are the responsibility of the subcontractor. |
| What is the expected lead time required to service the agency, ie: number of weeks from order to delivery? | Generally, delivery is expected within 2 weeks. |
| Will the agency allow for drop shipments? | Yes |
| What will be the level of insurance required by the supplier? | Loss/damage while in storage or in transit is the responsibility of the subcontractor, whether you choose to obtain insurance or self-insure. |
| Will any preference be given to WOSB, 8A, etc.. suppliers? | No, there will not be a preference for either WOSB. JPL doesn't consider 8(a) status. We may do either a SDVOSB set-aside or HUBZone, but that has not be determined yet. |
| What will be the terms the agency will remit payment to the supplier? | JPL's Standard Payment Terms is Net 30. |
| Will on-site setup services be required for any hardware procurement? | No, on-site setup will be the responsibility of the EESS subcontractor |
| Multiple OEM Submissions - Are respondents permitted to propose solutions leveraging more than one OEM (e.g., Dell and Lenovo) within a single RFI submission to provide JPL with broader technical and lifecycle options? MITSTRIKE’s intension is to provide two options, one from Dell and the other from Lenovo and have the JPL choose which option you prefer. | Multiple OEMs are allowed, however be aware that Lenovo is not an approved supplier for NASA due to its majority Chinese ownership.. |
| Trade Agreements Act (TAA) Compliance - Given JPL’s federal environment and the nature of the fleet management scope: |
Question:
| Should respondents assume that all proposed hardware must be TAA compliant? If so, does this requirement extend to all components (e.g., embedded GPUs, storage, peripherals), or only to the finished product | TAA compliant models should always be chosen when possible. However, it is understood that some requirements may necessitate non-TAA models, such as Apple Macbooks. |
| Linux Hardware Parity Requirement - Section 2.1 indicates that Windows and Linux devices should be identical hardware where possible. |
Question:
| Is strict hardware parity mandatory between Windows and Red Hat Enterprise Linux devices, or would JPL consider minor configuration differences (e.g., GPU or firmware compatibility considerations) if required for Linux optimization? | Parity is preferred for the sake of simplifying the hardware pool, but it is not strictly required. |
| Legacy Asset Assumption (ATV ~ $5M) - Section 4.1 outlines an approximate $5M Asset Transition Value (ATV) and intake of ~8,000 legacy assets. |
Questions:
| • | Will detailed asset-level data (make/model/age/warranty status) be provided during the RFI phase, or only after potential award? | |
| • | Is JPL seeking a firm commitment to assume the full ATV value, or is flexibility acceptable based on asset condition validation? | |
| • | Would JPL consider structured financial models (e.g., staged buy-in over 12 months) for legacy assumption? | 1) ATV details will be provided after award, as the ATV specifics fluctuate and will not be finalized until that time. 2) The full ATV is expected. 3) Payment would be made to ManTech, not JPL, and payment terms would be negotiated with them. We cannot speculate if structured terms would be considered. |
| Security & Data Handling Standards - Section 3.0 references NIST 800-88 compliant data destruction. |
Questions:
| • | Are there additional cybersecurity or supply chain risk management frameworks that vendors should assume (e.g., NIST 800-171, CMMC alignment, NASA FAR Supplement clauses)? | |
| • | Will SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) or hardware supply chain traceability be required? | CMMC Level 2 may become a requirement in the RFP, although it is not one at this time. Supply chain traceability is required, and all vendors must pass a Supply Chain Risk Management assessment with NASA. |
| Financial Model Clarification - The RFI describes: | ||
| • | Fixed-price Windows/Linux fleet (5,250 units) | |
| • | Flexible 36/48-month acquisition model for Apple devices |
Questions:
| • | Should respondents assume the fixed-price fleet is structured as a per-device monthly fee inclusive of financing, warehousing, and lifecycle management? | |
| • | For Apple devices, does JPL anticipate volume thresholds or minimum commitments, or strictly on-demand procurement? | 1) Yes, 2)On demand, but JPL will assist with forecasting. |
| Transition & Coexistence Timeline - Section 4.1 references a 48-month staggered refresh strategy. Questions: | ||
| • | Is JPL expecting immediate assumption of all legacy assets at subcontract execution, or phased intake over the first 120 days? | |
| • | Will JPL provide coordination support with the incumbent ICE contractor during transition? | 1) Legacy assets should be assumed by contract start. 2) Yes |
| would it be possible to provide the incumbent contractor, contract number, and contract value? | The incumbent is ManTech. Since the scope of this RFI is not equivalent to the incumbent contract, the current value is irrelevant. | |
| Who is the incumbent vendor/Contract Number? Is this new or existing work? | Mantech is the incumbent. This is a recompete and reconfiguration of the hardware portion only of the incumbent contract. | |
| When do you anticipate releasing the RFP? | Mid-2026 (likely May-July timeframe) | |
| Will it be released on SAM.GOV or another website? | SAM.gov and JPL Acquisition website. | |
| Will it be awarded to a single vendor or multiple vendors? | Single vendor | |
| What is the contract vehicle? | It is anticipated to be a Fixed Price subcontract. | |
| Does the government have funding for this opportunity? | JPL has not yet received funding to support this acquisition and anticipates, but cannot guarantee, that funding will be forthcoming. | |
| 1. Scope, Volumes, and Mix |
• Can JPL share any historical data on annual device adds/reductions and typical year over year change in fleet size, broken out by device tier and OS (Windows, macOS, Linux)?
| • Are there minimum and maximum device quantities JPL expects to guarantee per category (standard laptops, high performance mobile workstations, high performance desktops) under the fixed price model? | 1) The overall device distrution estimates are included in the RFI. Please divide by 48 to obtain a monthly refresh estimate. 2) No guarantees, but JPL will help with forecasting. |
| 2. Financial Model and Legacy Assets |
• For the fixed price Windows/Linux fleet, does JPL prefer a strictly per device monthly rate by tier, or would a banded/pooled model be acceptable so long as total fleet cost remains predictable?
• Regarding the Legacy Asset Management Fee, does JPL envision a flat per asset monthly fee across the 7,000–8,000 legacy devices, or would a tiered structure by age/value/risk be acceptable?
| • Are there any constraints on the use of OEM/distributor financing programs (e.g., Dell/Apple/integrator financing) to structure the per device monthly pricing for both new and legacy assets? | 1) Either model may be considered. 2) Either option may be considered. 3) No constraints. |
| 3. Transition and Reporting Expectations |
• Beyond the high level description in Section 4, are there specific mission areas or user groups that JPL expects to prioritize in the 48 month staggered refresh (e.g., mission critical operations, remote deployments)?
| • During the initial 120 day intake period, what reporting cadence and level of detail does JPL prefer (e.g., weekly vs. monthly status, key transition metrics, risk/issue logs)? | 1) No, the refresh is roughly evenly distributed over 48 months. 2) Negotiable, and will not be finalized until a later phase, but frequent reporting is expected during transition. |
| 4. Integration, Security, and Governance |
• Can JPL share current expectations for ServiceNow integration (e.g., required CMDB fields and whether there are existing APIs or patterns for automated asset updates from vendors)?
• In addition to NIST 800 88 for data destruction, are there JPL/NASA specific hardware or firmware hardening standards that must be applied at the imaging/provisioning stage (for Windows, macOS, and RHEL)?
| • How does JPL envision operational governance between the EEHS subcontractor and the EESS subcontractor—for example, will there be shared KPIs and joint reviews, or separate performance frameworks coordinated by JPL? | 1) Those details will be discussed in a later phase. 2) There are NASA standards which will be provided with the RFP. 3) Specific details are still under consideration, but the expectation is that the two contractors would form a joint operating agreement, and would function as part of the JPL "team". | ||
| Will the Enterprise Endpoint Hardware Services (EEHS) vehicle be structured to integrate with separately awarded endpoint automation, security, or IT service management contracts, or is JPL anticipating a fully bundled hardware-to-operations model? | This will be a separately awarded contract, with the two contractors forming a joint operatging agreement. | ||
| Lifecycle Friction: Where in the endpoint lifecycle does JPL experience the highest operational friction — procurement, secure deployment, utilization visibility, refresh, or disposition? | We're primarily looking for cost efficiency across the entire lifecycle. | ||
| Lifecycle Friction: Is endpoint refresh timing standardized enterprise-wide or program-specific? | Refresh timing is currently based on when the device was originally received, which varies person-by-person. This leads to a roughly even distribution of refresh throughout the year. | ||
| Lifecycle Friction: Is idle or over-provisioned hardware measured across programs? | Yes, to some extent. | ||
| Lifecycle Friction: Is there a formal redeployment pipeline for underutilized endpoints? | Yes, and we would like to expand upon that. | ||
| Compute & Utilization: Are high-performance or GPU-enabled endpoints centrally governed or program-procured? | We have GPU-enabled endpoints available centrally. | ||
| Compute & Utilization: Is endpoint-level utilization telemetry available to measure compute efficiency? | We do not have that data available today. | ||
| Compute & Utilization: Do network segmentation requirements result in redundant compute environments? | Not to a significant degree. | ||
| Deployment & Compliance: What is the average time from hardware receipt to secure production deployment? | 2 weeks | ||
| Deployment & Compliance: Are imaging and hardening processes standardized across security tiers? | Yes | ||
| Deployment & Compliance: Is downtime associated with patching or firmware enforcement measured? | No | ||
| Procurement & SKU Governance: Is endpoint procurement centralized or distributed? | Central via this subcontract | ||
| Procurement & SKU Governance: Are maintenance contracts consolidated or program-fragmented? | Regarding endpoints, they are central via this subcontract. | ||
| Asset Recovery: Is lifecycle disposition integrated with sustainability reporting? | Yes | ||
| Asset Recovery: Is asset recovery value tracked and reinvested into lifecycle programs? | Not currently. | ||
| Is TAA compliance a requirement? | TAA compliant models should always be chosen when possible. However, it is understood that some requirements may necessitate non-TAA models, such as Apple Macbooks. | ||
| Is pricing required for the RFI? | Yes | ||
| Does JPL want to scope this out as PC-as-a-Service or just want to close to the box services from the vendor? | This will be purchased as a service from you. You may choose to subcontract as PCasS from the manufacturer, or manage your own service. | ||
| 4.1 Phase-In and Coexistence Strategy: | "JPL requires a "bridge"service where the subcontractor assumes logistical and financial responsibility for the existing hardware footprint (approximately $5M) while simultaneously executing the phased rollout of the new Managed Device fleet. Existing devices were obtained at various times and will be at various stages of their lifecycle, with no more than 48 months remaining, at the time of subcontract execution." pg. 4 Question: How will ‘financial responsibility’ be managed (or not managed) on the subcontract? For example, will this a line item in any resulting contract? Or, for example, will this be purposefully omitted from any resulting subcontract? Any further information you can provide on this point would be appreciated. | It will be a written requirement to acquire the existing devices from the incunbent at the ATV price. | |
| 6.2 Service Delivery & Technical Alignment "Please indicate "Standard," "Optional," or "Not Available" for each requirement in relation to your service offering." pg. 6 Question: Can you define these terms more succinctly as used in this RFI? For example, should an organization provide one of three options based on current commercial practices, or how our organization envisions use on a future procurement? Also, does the term ‘optional’ insinuate or require additional cost? As an example, fixed-price monthly billing might not be standard in an organization’s daily business. But it is certainly ‘optional’ and does not incur any additional cost. | We intend on purchasing a service from your company. Those terms simply ask whether your packaged offering includes those components as standard, optional (for an additional fee), or is it not offered by your company. | ||
| 6.2 Service Delivery & Technical Alignment | "Capability to obtain computer hardware at a competitve price" pg. 6 Question: Will there be any non-standard/non-commercial flow down clauses that an awardee would be required to flow down to supply-chain vendors? | No | |
| 6.6 Past Performance "Issuing Agency" pg. 9 If the scope is relevant, are commercial contracts appropriate for mention as well? | Yes, include any relevant past performance. | ||
| 1. Authoritative device quantities for ROM pricing: Section 2.1 lists 2,500 Standard Laptops, 2,000 High Performance Mobile Workstations, and 750 High Performance Desktops, while Section 6.4 lists 3,000 / 3,000 / 1,000. Which quantities should vendors use for preliminary ROM pricing? | Use the quantities list in 6.4 | ||
| 2. Fixed-price Windows/Linux fleet quantity: Section 2.1 describes a fixed-price fleet of 5,000 Windows devices plus 250 Linux devices, while Section 6.2 references fixed-price monthly billing for 6,000 Windows units. Which quantity should govern vendor responses? | Use the quantities list in 6.2 | ||
| 3. Legacy asset transition quantity: Section 4.2 refers to approximately 8,000 legacy assets, while Sections 6.2 and 6.5 reference 7,000 legacy assets. Please confirm the authoritative quantity for planning and pricing assumptions. | Use 7,000 | ||
| 4. Legacy asset assumption pricing structure: Should vendors assume the approximate $5M ATV is to be incorporated into a monthly management model, or should it be treated as a separate transition or pass-through pricing element? | You be acquiring the assets from ManTech in a direct transaction. After that, you should incorporate that cost into the monthly price offered to JPL for recovery. | ||
| 5. Fleet growth assumptions: For the Windows/Linux fleet, should vendors assume a fixed baseline quantity with unit-rate pricing for growth above baseline, or a banded / scalable monthly pricing model? | JPL is open to either model. | ||
| 6. Boundary between EEHS and EESS: Please clarify the operational handoff between EEHS and EESS, including custody point, staging expectations, and whether EEHS delivery is to an EESS staging location or another designated JPL receiving point. | These details are still under consideration and will be finalized by the RFP release. | ||
| 7. Imaging and provisioning responsibilities: Please confirm which functions are expected under EEHS versus EESS, specifically for BIOS/firmware configuration, OS imaging, Autopilot/Intune/JAMF enrollment, asset tagging, encryption enablement, and final QA validation. | The EEHS contractor will be responsible for applying the firmware and OS configuration supplied by the EESS contractor. | ||
| 8. Apple iPhone logistics scope: The RFI notes that iPhones will be acquired under EESS but may utilize EEHS logistics services. What specific iPhone-related logistics functions, if any, should vendors assume under EEHS? | This part is optional, but you may form an agreement with the EESS contractor to house, track, and tag their phone inventory. | ||
| 9. Meaning of “certified for federal government use”: For the shared warehousing and logistics environment, is JPL expecting a specific compliance framework, audit standard, or control baseline? | The facilicties should have strong physicall access controls and security, and all personnel operating near JPL data must be US Persons. Those who handle JPL data must be onboarded and badged. | ||
| 10. Use of teamed or partner-supported experience: For items such as management of 5,000+ device fleets, will JPL consider relevant experience performed through a prime-subcontractor or OEM/logistics partner team arrangement? | Yes, all relevant experience will be considered. |
Would the Government consider using the 150-employee size standard for NAICS 541519 rather than NAICS 541513 with a $37M revenue-based size standard? Because this requirement focuses on the delivery of end user computer hardware, the employee based standard under 541519(e) more accurately reflects the structure of small business hardware resellers, which typically operate in high revenue/low margin environments and can quickly exceed a revenue-based standard despite remaining small in actual operations.
| JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. | |
| What are the hardware specifications required for the MacBook Pro Laptops? | For the ROM, you may use a 14" Macbook Pro with M5 10 core, 24GB RAM, and a 1TB SSD. Please specifiy in your response that this is the configuration you used. |
| What are the hardware specifications for the potential iPhone mobile devices? | We use the iPhone 17 256GB, but EEHS does not include the acquisition of phone hardware in the scope of services. |
| What is the required delivery time from unit order placed to delivery on site? | 2 weeks |
| Section 3.0: What specifically is meant by "this solution must be certified for = Federal Government. "Is there a specific certification required? | The facilicties should have strong physicall access controls and security, and all personnel operating near JPL data must be US Persons. Those who handle JPL data must be onboarded and badged. |
| Section 3.0: Warehousing: What security thresholds are required | See previous answer |
| Section 3.0: Lifecycle Management: what determines the refresh rate (3-4 years). | We will make that final determination before the RFP release. |
| Section 3.0: Sanitization: "Physical destruction is not required." Who retains ownership of the product after sanitization of the product? | The subcontractor owns the device hardware. |
| Section 3.0: Please describe the mechanism JPL will deliver the image to the vendor, including any security or technology requirements. For example, will imaging require a dedicated network connection to JPL? | This will depend on the solution proposed by the EESS contractor. |
| Section 3.0: Will JPL have the vendor exclusively use Autopilot/Intune or JAMF to install the image? Is there a detailed imaging workflow that can be shared? | Autopilot/Jamf are preferred, but we may entertain other solutions if proposed by the EESS contractor. |
| Section 4.1: Asset assumptions: Can detailed information be provided including the Vendor, age, condition, model and current owner of the existing hardware. | This will be provided post-award. The existing asset environment is very hetergeneous and has assets of varying age and condition. Current owner is ManTech. |
| Section 4.2: Asset assumptions: Can detailed information be provided including the Vendor, age, condition, model and current owner of the existing hardware. | See previous answer |
| Section 4.2: How does JPL envision the vendor to support the warranty repair of the fleet? How will that service differentiate from the EESS contract? Will the EESS contractor be responsible for coordinating the pickup of these assets to an offsite location for the EEHS contractor to perform the maintenance? | The EEHS contractor will be responsibile for performing and/our outsourcing all hardware repairs. The EESS contractor is responsible for software troubleshooting. |
| Section 6.0: Would JPL reconsider the 541513 NAICS Code to 541519? 541519 Allows for the "IT VAR Exception" This code and resulting rules exception is in place to better support the work you require. Nearly all respondents will carry this NAICS code and allows for the size standard to properly reflect the larger revenue/low margin project outlined. A small business will require a larger credit line and a business large enough to absorb the ATV, a business small enough to operate as small using 541413 would need significant support to deliver successfully on this engagement. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/26/2016-00922/small- business-size-standards-industries-with-employee-based-size-standards-not-part-of | JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. |
| 2.1 Fixed-Price Windows/Linux Fleet: Are substitutes acceptable if specifically requested parts are not available due to DIMM/chip/processor shortages? | Yes |
| 2.1 Fixed-Price Windows/Linux Fleet: Is the 7,250 over lifetime of contract, or per year? (or other range of time) | That is the total count of in-use devices at any given time. |
| 2.2 Flexible Apple Computer Acquisition: Can they provide preferred specs for MacBook Pro? (screen size, color, RAM, chip, display type, SSD, etc) | For the ROM, you may use a 14" Macbook Pro with M5 10 core, 24GB RAM, and a 1TB SSD. Please specifiy in your response that this is the configuration you used. |
| 2.2 Flexible Apple Computer Acquisition: Or a preferred model? | See previous answer |
| 2.2 Flexible Apple Computer Acquisition: So Windows + Apple imagining is billed separately from the fixed-price??? | Apple is separate from the core fixed price. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: What is the expected SLA for device turnaround (warehouse → ready-to-ship)? | 2 weeks |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Will JPL require air-gapped provisioning capability for classified workloads? | No, this contract is for unclassified systems. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Who validates images before deployment ( JPL)? | EESS contractor |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: What asset management platform does JPL currently use? | ServiceNow |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: What reporting cadence is expected (monthly, quarterly , dashboard)? | Monthly |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities:Is applecare + needed on all apple devices? | Repairs should be at no cost to JPL during the lifetime of the systems. Whether you choose to buy AppleCare is up to you as a risk/cost decision. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Will apple devices be on apple business manager? | Yes |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Is physical drive destruction required for sensitive systems, are logs/verification needed? | No, secure erase is acceptable.Logs/certification of erasure is required. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Asset tagging: is that done by DataNet or someone else? | You will be responsible for asset tagging. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities:How physically close does the storage location need to be to NASA site(s)? | There is no requirement for physical location, other than being in the USA. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: Who is responsible for activating phones, and replacing if hardware failure/device is broken? | You are not responsible for phones. You are responsible for replacing/repairing computer hardware acquired from you. |
| 3.0 Service Level Responsibilities: If drives are not wipable (failed drives, too many wipe attempts failed) will physical destruction be an acceptable substitute? | Yes |
| 4.1 Phase In & Coexistence Strategy: Can you please be more specific about having to "bridge" service during transition period? | You will need to support the existing devices withing their normal service lifecycle until they reach 48 months of age. |
| 4.1 Phase In & Coexistence Strategy: Are we expected buy out the current equipment in the environment from the previous service provider? | Yes |
| 4.2 Requirements for Legacy Support: Clarification on "Legacy Devices" - legacy means "existing" not older/aged? | "Legacy" in this context means the devices in service not originally acquired from EEHS. |
| 4.2 Requirements for Legacy Support: If device is out of existing warranty, does our "best effort" repair allowing servicing by third party companies (eg: local pc repair shop) or do we have to handle the repair with fully in house resources? | You may use 3rd party, but drives need to be wiped before sending to unbadged service technicians. |
| 4.2 Requirements for Legacy Support: What is the expected SLA for fixing/repairing devices under "best effort" and for "OEM Warranty"? | SLAs are still under consideration, but best effort generally has no SLA. |
| 4.2 Requirements for Legacy Support: Are there differenet SLAs for the different types (laptops, workstations, linux units, macbooks) and for different divisions? (marketing, engineering, support, etc) | SLAs are still under consideration, but generally no, all devices are treated equally. |
| 6.2 Service Delivery & Technical Alignment: How many units of each is considered "adequate buffer stock"? | That's up to you to forecast based on historical service needs. JPL will furnish that information post award. |
| 6.2 Service Delivery & Technical Alignment: What is the SLA time period for "ready to ship" to delivered at the end customer location? | 2 weeks |
| General Questions: Section 6.4 mentions 3,000 standard laptops, 3,000 high performance workstations, while 2.1 mentions 2,500 standard and 2,000 workstations. Which numbers should we be using? | Use the numbers in 6.4 |
| Given that a large portion of this work is an IT Buy with Services, would JPL consider changing the NAICS to 541519 with the ITVAR exception to utilize sizing by employee count? | JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. |
| Preliminary Pricing Framework requests estimated costs for various devices; however, the market is volatile at this time with its pricing. How will JPL handle a possible, significant increase in monthly cost 6-9 months down the road (at time of RFP)? | This market situation is being considered for the RFP. |
| To assume inventory (Section 4.1), can we also request to receive asset tracking information? | If you mean location, we do not track the realtime location of devices, but other information such as assigned user will be made available. |
| To assume inventory (Section 4.1), will the purchase of the equipment also entail the transfer of the equipment from current warehouse to ours? | Most equipment will be with the end user and will not be physically moved. |
| For data sanitization purposes: Is/Will full disk encryption be enabled and in use on the systems? | Yes, FDE is enabled and required on all devices. |
| For Section 4.1, are warranties transferable? | You'll have to work that out with ManTech post-award. JPL does not track warranties. |
| Program Scope & Structure: Could JPL provide additional clarification on the anticipated procurement structure for this initiative (e.g., single prime contractor, multiple award vehicle, or modular procurement phases)? | Single award |
| Program Scope & Structure: Is the intent for the selected provider to deliver an end-to-end managed lifecycle service, including device procurement, configuration, logistics, support, asset management, and disposal, or will certain functions remain internally managed by JPL? | End to end managed. |
| Program Scope & Structure: Does JPL anticipate phasing the program rollout (e.g., pilot deployment followed by full fleet transition), or will the lifecycle program begin with a large-scale deployment? | It will be phased. |
| Device Fleet & Asset Transition: The RFI references approximately ~7,250 new endpoint devices and ~8,000 legacy assets. Could JPL clarify: |
The device types included (laptops, desktops, workstations, specialized engineering systems, etc.)
| The current operating environments (Windows, macOS, Linux, mixed environment) | It will be a mix of laptops, desktop workstations, and mobile workstations. Currently, we have Windows and macOS, but Linux (RHEL) will be added to the scope of this contract. |
| Device Fleet & Asset Transition: |
For the ~8,000 legacy assets and ~$5M asset assumption, is JPL seeking vendors to:
Absorb the residual value of existing equipment into a lifecycle financing model?
| Manage migration, refurbishment, redeployment, or secure disposal of legacy assets? | Yes | |
| PC-as-a-Service / Financing Model: Does JPL intend to structure this initiative under a Device-as-a-Service (DaaS) or PC-as-a-Service (PCaaS) subscription model, including hardware, lifecycle services, and financing within a single recurring cost structure? | Yes | |
| PC-as-a-Service / Financing Model: If a PCaaS model is pursued, does JPL have preferred financing partners or frameworks, or should vendors propose their own lifecycle financing structures? | Vendors should propose | |
| Imaging, Configuration, and Security : Could JPL provide additional details regarding endpoint configuration requirements, such as: |
Standard imaging processes
Endpoint security tooling
| Device enrollment processes (e.g., MDM, Zero-Touch deployment) | Zero touch is expected, but the exact solution will be determed by the EESS conctractor. | |
| Imaging, Configuration, and Security : Given JPL’s security posture and mission environment, are there specific compliance frameworks or standards vendors should anticipate supporting (e.g., NIST, NASA security baselines, FISMA, Zero Trust architecture)? | NIST 800-53 and NASA CSET | |
| Logistics & Lifecycle Management: Is JPL seeking a vendor capable of providing centralized warehousing, staging, imaging, and distribution services, or will devices be shipped directly to end users? | The devices should be ready use when they reach the user's desk. How you accomplish that is your solution to propose. | |
| Logistics & Lifecycle Management: What level of asset lifecycle visibility is expected (e.g., asset tracking dashboards, lifecycle analytics, refresh planning)? | There should be visisbility into the lifecycle. | |
| Logistics & Lifecycle Management: Does JPL anticipate the vendor providing break/fix services, field support, or advanced replacement logistics as part of the lifecycle program? | Off-site hardware repair and replacement is expected. | |
| Contract Duration & Refresh Cycles: The RFI references a 10-year program horizon. Could JPL clarify the expected technology refresh cadence within that period (e.g., 3-year or 4-year refresh cycles)? | Both 3 and 4 year options are being considered, with 4 year being the most likely. | |
| Contract Duration & Refresh Cycles: Will the lifecycle program include technology evolution provisions to incorporate emerging hardware platforms or architecture changes over time? | Yes | |
| Small Business Participation: Does JPL anticipate encouraging small business participation or subcontracting opportunities within the lifecycle ecosystem, particularly for areas such as: |
Endpoint security services
Asset management
Logistics operations
Lifecycle analytics
| Small business participation is encouraged. | |
| Small Business Participation: Are there specific small business categories JPL is seeking to include within this initiative? | At present, it is open to all SB categories |
| Next Steps & Procurement Timeline: Following the RFI phase, does JPL anticipate releasing a formal solicitation (RFP/RFQ) for this program? | Yes, in the May-July timeframe. |
| Next Steps & Procurement Timeline: Could JPL provide an estimated timeline for the procurement phases and potential program start date? | This will be defined in the RFP. |
| What imaging format will the supplied images be in? | That will be determined by the EESS contractor. |
| What is the makes and model of the assets in transition? | We have many different models of HP, Dell, Apple, and Microsoft. |
| Section 1.0, Page 2 - Can JPL clarify what EEHS logistics for mobile devices may be used on this contract and whether the warehouse is to be shared with EESS? | Mobile logistics and warehousing will be separate unless the two contractors agree to sharing resources. |
| Section 1.0, Page 2 - Does EEHS need to have the ability to deliver all assets to the location of EESS for coordination of last mile delivery? | Yes |
| Section 1.0, Page 2 - Is Refresh Deployment constrained at all by last mile delivery of EESS? If yes, what is the maximum number of systems that can be deployed? | That will depend on the capabilities of the chosen EESS contractor. |
| Section 1.0, Page 2 - Should hardware shipping to EESS location be included in the price or be billed to JPL separately? | Included |
| Section 3.0, Page 4 - Which certifications/clearance levels are required by JPL? | No certification or clearance requirement. All support personnel must be US Persons and able to pass a background investigation. |
| Does JPL anticipate EEHS being structured as a single prime managed service contract, or will the requirement be separated into multiple acquisition components supporting different lifecycle functions (for example, hardware procurement, lifecycle management, or logistics)? | Single prime entity |
| What role does JPL anticipate small businesses playing within the EEHS acquisition strategy? | It depends on their qualifications and RFI responses. |
| Does the EEHS concept require a fully managed device lifecycle service model, or will portions of the lifecycle remain supported by internal JPL teams? | The goal is fully managed. |
| Will the contractor be responsible for hardware procurement and OEM financing, or will JPL provide purchasing channels, with the contractor supporting logistics and lifecycle services? | The contractor is responsible for all. |
| Does the EEHS model require the contractor to operate dedicated staging or warehousing facilities for device configuration and lifecycle operations, or will staging capacity be provided within JPL facilities? | The contractor needs to provide all facilities. JPL will facilitate a network/VPN connection if necessary. |
| Can JPL provide context on the current endpoint lifecycle environment, including whether internal teams or external service providers presently perform provisioning, asset management, and refresh activities? | Currently all lifecycle activties are performed by the incumbent contractor, ManTech. |
| Can JPL share the anticipated acquisition timeline for EEHS, including whether additional industry engagement or draft RFPs are expected before final solicitation? | To be determined. |
| Since this is a hardware type requirement can the NAICS be changed to 334111 - NAICS code 334111 is for Electronic Computer Manufacturing. This industry includes businesses that manufacture, assemble, or design computers such as mainframes, personal computers, laptops, tablets, and servers. It also covers the integration of processors, memory, and storage into user-programmable, functional, computer systems. | JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. |
| Was NAICS 541519 with the ITVAR Footnote 18 exception considered for this requirement? | JPL will be take this suggestion into consideration. |
| Would JPL be open to revisiting the NAICS designation prior to formal solicitation? | JPL will take this suggestion into consideration. |
| Will the EEHS contractor be responsible for all hardware repair and break/fix services for devices in the managed fleet, including warranty coordination and out-of-warranty repairs? | Yes |
| Does JPL intend for the EEHS contractor to support a fully automated zero-touch deployment model, including pre-imaging, BIOS/firmware configuration, device enrollment (e.g., Intune, JAMF), and asset tagging prior to delivery to end users | Yes |
| The RFI references approximately $5M in existing hardware assets currently managed under the ICE contract. Will the EEHS contractor be required to purchase or otherwise assume financial responsibility for these assets as part of the transition? | Yes |
| Will JPL provide a detailed inventory of the existing hardware fleet (including device types, age, warranty status, and expected refresh timelines) to assist vendors in planning transition and lifecycle pricing? | Yes, upon award. |
| Will the devices supported under the EEHS contract be used exclusively by unclassified personnel, or will any classified environments or security clearance requirements apply? | Unclassified only. |
| Is JPL planning for a transition period of approximately four months for the intake of legacy assets, implementation of logistics operations, and coordination with the EESS contractor? | Yes |
| Will JPL’s internal communications team manage employee communications regarding the hardware transition, or will the EEHS contractor be expected to support employee messaging, documentation, and rollout guidance? | JPL will assist with communications. |
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 .