Questions_DRAFT_RFP_Final_Responses_12_Jan_16.pdf

Questions DRAFT RFP

Contractor 1:

SOW, Page 10 of 77 1.2.11 Telephonic Support

1. Q: a.) Does the Government require 24x7 support to accommodate the PPO and OPPO on day one of the contract performance period or does the contract go live with PPO and OPPO local time as equipment is shipped regionally, worldwide?

A: Telephonic support shall be available on day one, as a minimum, during the Principle Period of Operation (PPO) on a worldwide basis. The

Contractor shall provide a means to receive problem reports from users

Outside of Principal Period of Operation (OPPO).

b.) For OPPO, telephonic answering service – what is the minimum amount of time before call back from the contractor?

A: The minimum amount of time before call back from the contractor will be within 24 hours. Therefore, SOW paragraph 1.2.11 will be changed to reflect this requirement.

c.) For OPPO, can this support be initiated via email with a 1-hour call back service or does OPPO have to maintain telephonic support?

A: The PPO and OPPO have to maintain telephonic support for the time periods listed in 1.2.11 of the SOW.

SOW, Page 12 of 77 1.2.18 Security

2. Q: Since some task/delivery orders will include security clearance requirements, Industry recommends active Facility Clearances become a requirement of the contract at time of RFP submittal, allowing for the performance of said task/delivery orders upon contract award.

A: Noted. The specific vendor security clearance will be determined at the delivery order level. Reference 1.2.19 of the SOW.

Contractor 2:

1.2.2 Consolidated Buy

3. Q: “CLINs from closed CBs shall be available for 60 days after the CB has closed.”

Can this be changed to 30 days after CB? 60 days seems excessive for a price to remain valid after the closing of the CB.

A: This will be updated to reflect the current CB pricing shall remain valid for 30 days after the closing of the CB.

1.2.1 General Requirements for Unified Master Gold Disk (UMGD)

4. Q: “Custom images (e.g., loads with unique operating systems, additional applications, drivers, or utilities from the standard AGM) may be supplied by various customers and shall be loaded under provisions of the “Custom Load CLIN”.

Does CHESS consider versions of AGM for the Army Reserve and the Army Corps of Engineers to be custom loads that should be supplied by the various customers?

There are times when customers are reluctant to provide these images.

A: The Custom Image is an option available to customers that wish to take advantage of this service. Normally the vendor shall load the Army supplied

AGM image and only those customers requesting a Custom Image and providing the image will use the CLIN.

If these are requested during the RFQ process and results in an order, what is the mechanism that will allow for that image to be provided?

A: The Custom Image will be provided by the requesting customer. The customer will be responsible for assuring that all proper software licenses are acquired and custom image works with vendor platform.

1.2.7 Warranty

5. Q: “Warranty coverage shall only be terminated when equipment is grievously damaged. Grievous damage would include cracked, crushed, or bent equipment enclosure/contents; penetration or spillage by foreign objects or liquids; or damage of item by fire or kinetic force that has been incurred after acceptance of delivery.”

(emphasis added)

Can CHESS mandate a time frame in which the customer must make a claim for damaged goods?

Justification: Equipment is often shipped to a military warehouse receiving facility, but, the end user does not receive their order until several days (or even weeks) after the actual delivery date. The time frame to file a claim with the shipper has expired and therefore damages are not recoverable. To ensure customers are able to obtain replacement goods at no cost, we suggest a 7 business day time frame for the customer to report receipt of damaged goods. Receiving personnel should be encouraged to note damage at the time of delivery with the shipper. This will allow offerors sufficient time to file a loss/damage claim with the shipping company, and in turn offer the Government a higher level of customer service.

A: Vendors shall follow the commercial warranty process.

13.2 Cost Reimbursable CLIN

6. Q: Are there examples of “ancillary items” available for this particular CLIN? If so, can you please provide this information?

A: Examples include unforeseen items required to support full implementation of the commodity IT procurement (e.g., DVI to HDMI adapters, Fiber optic NICs, etc.)

Any miscellaneous items required to by the user may be purchase via the

“Within-Scope” CLIN. The total price of Within-Scope items cannot exceed 5% of the total order price.

1.2.4 Deliver (SOW page 6)

7. Q: Would you consider changing Alaska and Hawaii to OCONUS as defined by the

Army? Justification: there is a lot of confusion regarding shipping as it is drastically more expensive to ship to Alaska and Hawaii. Also the Army defines Alaska and Hawaii as

OCONUS, and having CHESS define it differently confuses customers.

A: Requirement remains unchanged.

Section 3 of SOW – CLIN Numbers

8. Q: Can a CLIN# be added to include Consumables? Customers will appreciate a more efficient way to purchase consumables. Using different vendors and contracts to purchase ink and toner is takes additional time and cost the customer more money.

They would prefer to be able to purchase toner from the same vendor.

A: The ADMC-3 is a commodities contract focused on providing computer platforms with a limited selection of hard copy devices. The offering of overall IT equipment, including consumables, is accomplished through the ITES-3H contract.

1.2.4 Delivery

9. Q: a.) Can OCONUS Delivery time be extended to 45 days, and Remote OCONUS extended to 60 days? Many times shipments are sitting in Customs clearance awaiting paper work which can take an additional 7-10 days effecting timely delivery to the customer.

Would the government consider extending or reviewing delivery date after FAA’s decision on the Lithium Battery issues?

Section 3 of SOW – CLIN Numbers

10. Q: Can a mobile workstation CLIN be added to the Consolidated Buy? This would add competition and better serve the customer looking to purchase large quantities of higher end laptops outside the mainstream or specialty specs.

A: The current product selection reflects Army requirements. Such a determination may be made post award to add additional products through the use Technology Refresh and Product Additions (Para 1.2.13).

General

11. Q: Would the Government consider requiring the OT and VS reports to be submitted quarterly instead of monthly?

A: Requirement remains unchanged.

12. Q: We strongly support your choosing of FAR 19.502-2, all Delivery Orders valued between 3000 and 150000 shall be set aside for qualifying small business contract holders

A: Noted.

13. Q: EPA definition of personal computers specify DVD optical drive, however, its function has been disabled in practice, would government remove DVDRW configuration from the equipment list?

A: The Army-NETCOM Technical Authority states a requirement for DVD optical drives and therefore shall remain in the SOW. For clarification the DVD function has not been disabled. Only storage devices that utilize the USBSTOR driver are disabled.

14. Q: If the credit card purchase is over micro-purchase threshold, can the contractor request that the order is made via delivery order instead?

A: If order is above the micro-purchase threshold a delivery order is the appropriate method.

15. Q: Regarding package numbering, does the numbering apply to pallets or cartons on the pallet? For example, one pallet may contain 200 printer keyboards. Does each carton of keyboards need to be numbered?

A: Reference DFARS 252.122-7003.

16. Q: Are we required to “label” all UID shipments with RFID tags?

A: Reference DFARS 252.122-7003 and 252.122-7006.

17. Q: Submission: Is there limitation of pages for submission? Would government come up with a fix number?

A: Not asking for submission.

18. Q: Equipment Submission Form

Cell C12, there are no CPU model #s in the drop down to choose from?

A: The final release of the Vendor Submission Form will include approved CPU models (drop down selections).

Contractor 3

1.2.18 Security

19. Q: Is the Prime Contractor required to have a Facility Clearance in order to submit a bid?

A: Not at time of Basic IDIQ award. Will be determined at the Delivery Order Level.

20. Q: Will the Army sponsor the Prime Contractor to submit for a Facility Clearance, if the Prime Contractor is selected for one of the awards (in conjunction with the interim clearance request listed in Section 1.2.3 Start-up Period)?

21. Q: Can the Prime Contractor utilize subcontractors that maintain a Facility

Clearance, rather than pursue its own Facility Clearance?

22. Q: Is the Prime Contractor required to identify a subcontractor with TS/SCI in advance, or can that be deferred until a requirement demanding TS/SCI is distributed?

23. Q: Is a subcontractor with a Secret Level DOD Facility Clearance sufficient for submitting a bid as a Prime Contractor?

24. Q: Can a Prime Contractor choose not to participate in an RFQ requiring a Facility

Clearance, noting that 99% of all previous orders did not require any level of clearance?

25. Q: Specifically to the Desktop / Integrated Desktop / Dual CPU Workstation, it is apparent that some of your specifications are outdated (specifically Intel 4th Gen Core processor with DDR3 memory), and that your approach of LPTA may preclude bidders from proposing current technology, for fear of other bidders who are going to propose dead/dying technology at ridiculous prices, hoping to recover during an immediate technology refresh. Since you are asking for 10 year pricing, can you clarify how you are going to be able review pricing of older technology (i.e. systems that are technically not even available)? How are we as bidders supposed to propose 10 year pricing which will undoubtedly cover at least 3 and possibly 5 complete refresh cycles? How much flexibility to proposers have to raise/lower prices based on newer technology that has an inherently different cost model than your current system footprints? You claim you are going to utilize price reasonableness and potential review of unbalanced pricing, yet it has been proven by both the Air Force and NASA, that there is an inherent unwillingness to toss out the lowest price bidders no matter how ridiculous their pricing appears to be. As you know, for SEWP V Group C, the market basket of 22 products

+/- had an initial price range from $100M to $900M among the 40+ selected contractors.

This led to an immediate protest that NASA did not even consider price in their best value selection methodology, leading eventually to every qualified bidder receiving a contract. NASA threw in the towel immediately once their lawyers realized how poorly done their initial Best Value evaluation had been handled with regard to pricing. Clearly had they evaluated price they would have established a range somewhere in the $300M to $600M range, tossing out the low and the high. Will the Army have the courage to actually review pricing or are you going to follow recent trends in procurement and allow the lawyers to rule the roost? Pardon my frankness…\

A: The Government will be requesting and evaluating the 1st year of base year pricing. These rates will be ceiling rates until the following occurs: (1) Product end of lifecycle (2) Mandated DoD/Army requirements directed change.

Contractor 4

Business Process Form

26. Q: It appears that the evaluation of Factor 1, Subfactor 2 will be based on information in this document. Does the Army only want a terse statement of compliance, as shown in the drop down option, or does the Army want a descriptive narrative. If a narrative is desired, we request a different format, since including narrative in spreadsheet cells is difficult to compose, format, edit, and read.

A: Since the acquisition is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable the Army only wants a statement of compliance. No additional consideration can be made for information provided as narrative and therefore unnecessary.

7.3.1 DRFP p. 44

27. Q: Contract references ‘shall represent recent and relevant performance as a prime and/or first-tier subcontractor under Government Agency contracts.’ Does this mean that only federal government past performance references will be considered relevant and therefore evaluated?

A: 7.3.1 states “The Offeror may submit with its initial proposal up to three (3) contract or project references for itself. All project and/or contract reference(s) shall represent recent and relevant performance as a prime and/or first-tier subcontractor under Government Agency contracts (i.e. Department of Defense:

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, DLA, etc.; Federal, Department of Homeland

Security, Department of State, etc.).”

The Government removed state and local. Yes, only Government contract references will be evaluated.

3.2.1.3 DRFP p. 48

28. Q: Services include: installation, asset tagging, imaging, site survey, system configuration for Army, DOD and other Federal Agencies …’ This also implies that only past performance references for federal government agencies will be considered relevant. Please confirm if this is accurate?

A: All reference to services will be removed.

3.10 p. 41

29. Q: Offerors shall provide sufficient detail to substantiate the validity of all stated assertions.’ What additional information is required and in what format? There are no provisions for additional documents such as mission support narrative or product technical specifications described in the Section 7, ITO.

A: No supporting documentation is required to substantiate validity of assertions. Government will conduct internal validations to find technical acceptability.

5.2.1 p. 41

30. Q: Failure to provide the required supporting documentation may result in your offer being rejected.’ What supporting documentation is being referenced in this paragraph?

There are no provisions in Section 7 which describe additional documentation which can or should be submitted in any of the four proposal volumes.

A: No supporting documentation is required to substantiate validity of

Contractor 5

Section 3.10 DRFP

31. Q: “offerors shall provide sufficient detail to substantiate the validity of all stated assertions. Clarity and completeness are essential. Data not submitted with the proposal, but submitted previously, or presumed to be known (i.e., previous projects performed for the USG) may not be considered as part of the proposal.” Additionally, section 5.2.3 states, “Offerors submitting proposals should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required within. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's capabilities to successfully perform under the resultant contract.” The broader RFP instructions suggest offerors need to substantiate their statements. However, the Offeror Business Process Form and Vendor Submission Form for Volume I, Subfactors I and II, do not seem to require substantiation of offeror claims, and the Excel format does not lend itself to providing narratives or other documentation that could prove offeror claims as required by Section 3.10 and 5.23. We recommend the Government provide additional information on how it will allow offerors to substantiate their claims within the context of the Offeror Business Process Form and Vendor Submission Form.

A: No supporting documentation is required to substantiate validity of

Section 7.4.4 SOW

32. Q: “within each equipment category the same OEM shall be proposed regardless if item is for CONUS, OCONUS or Remote OCONUS.” Is it the Government’s desire that every single element within a single category be provided by one OEM, including the upgrades and warranties? If that is the Government’s desire, we believe that in many instances this requirement would greatly limit product solution offerings within a category, particular as many OEMs do not provide a compliant OCONUS onsite warranty. If ADMC-3 contractors are limited in the number of solutions they can offer to the Government, then the Army is unlikely to receive the best pricing as the OEM is under no pressure to lower its pricing. We suggest the best pricing can be reached by having multiple technical solutions that can be provided by multiple OEMs. If the Government will allow other parties to provide upgrades and warranty services within a category, we believe it will greatly improve the post-award effectiveness of ADMC-3.

A: A customer ordering a platform in CONUS may need to take that device to an OCONUS or Remote OCONUS location and the device must be supportable worldwide. The requirement for the same platform across CONUS, OCONUS and Remote OCONUS equipment category does not apply to warranty services.

33. Q: Over the years, the technology commodities industry, made up of both manufacturers and resellers, has provided profoundly unrealistic pricing in response to solicitations establishing ID/IQ IT commodity contracts, often stating prices significantly below actual costs in order to win a spot on the multiple award vehicle. Combined with the length of time the award process takes for these large ID/IQs, manufacturers and resellers are able to take advantage of the technical refresh and insertion clauses in these ID/IQs to present initial catalogs with products that will soon reach end of life or they never intend to sell. They use the technical refresh or insertion clauses to include the products they actually intend to sell and at realistic prices post award. We recognize the Government has placed restrictions on price increases for technical refreshes and can reject any refresh or insertion proposal post-award. We are interested in what additional steps the Government will take to ensure offerors are not using unbalanced and unrealistic pricing for ADMC-3 categories with their initial proposals. We have found that comparative methods prescribed by the FAR that include comparing unit prices across proposals can prove ineffective because unbalanced and unrealistic pricing is so common in this industry, and therefore it not evident during comparisons. Will the Government establish a realistic and reasonable range independently from the unit prices they receive; perhaps based on the pricing it already sees at the task order level on ADMC-2? Will the Government require additional information from offerors to help them establish that their price is realistic and reasonable? We believe if the Government does not take clear and public steps to combat unrealistic and unbalanced pricing, the LPTA nature of the ADMC-3 procurement will become less about providing the lowest price technically acceptable solution and more about providing the lowest price solution of a solution the offeror will never have to deliver, which undermines the entire competitive process.

A: The Government will be requesting and evaluating the 1st year of base year pricing. These rates will be ceiling rates until the following occurs: (1) Product end of lifecycle (2) Mandated DoD/Army requirements directed change.

34. Q: Will the cost that the US Army is currently paying for the products, or similar products, listed in the list of equipment to be priced be a factor in determining price reasonableness for this RFP?

A: The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Normally adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. History is a price analysis technique that can be used to determine price reasonableness provided a valid basis for comparison. See FAR 15.404-1 (b)(2)(ii).

35. Q: What methodology will be used by the government to establish that proposed products are currently available for sale to the government? Will the government request that the End of Life approximate date be included as a required piece of information to be included with each product proposed? Would the government consider establishing a minimum period of time after award that all product proposed by an offeror must be available for sale, at the price stated in the offeror’s proposal?

A: The Government will be requesting and evaluating the 1st year of base year end of lifecycle (2) Mandated DoD/Army requirements directed change.

36. Q: Though pricing might be judged as balanced, would unit pricing significantly below what the product is currently being sold for to Federal customers be taken into account as a significant factor in determining cost reasonableness? How significant would a finding of price unreasonableness be in determining a competitive range for award?

A: The Government will be requesting and evaluating the 1st year of base year end of lifecycle (2) Mandated DoD/Army requirements directed change.

37. Q: Will the government require that all products proposed by the offeror be sourced from manufacturers for which the offeror is an authorized Federal partner? Would the government consider establishing a minimum period of time that any offeror must have been an authorized Federal partner of any manufacturer product being proposed?

A: The government will discuss and explore this solution.

38. Q: In order to better understand the technical refresh process, we present the following scenario: Product X is bid at $500 unit price at the time of submission. Post award, product X goes End of Life and is replaced by product Y. Product Y meets/exceeds the technical requirements of Product X and has a new cost of $1,000.

Would this price increase be accepted?

A: Although the agency does not generally answer hypothetical questions, the agency takes leave of that general rule here.

The Agency will ensure through technical evaluation that product Y truly meets/exceeds the technical requirements of product X. After assurance, the Agency will perform a Fair and Reasonable price determination based on commercially available pricing and proposed discounts. If accepted, this price will be the ceiling price until (1) Product end of lifecycle (2) Mandated DoD/Army requirements directed change. .

Depending on the product, the Agency can see that the proposed price for product Y could be an increase or decrease, from product X.

Contractor 6

Section 1.2.8 Time to Repair

39. Q: Desktop equipment, within CONUS and named OCONUS locations, shall be repaired or replaced and fully operational within two (2) Government working days following notification to the contractor's designated technical support personnel of the need for warranty service. Portable equipment, within CONUS and named OCONUS locations, for which on-site warranty is being offered shall be repaired or replaced and fully operational within two (2) Government working days following notification to the contractor's designated technical support personnel of the need for warranty service.

Request changing the two (2) Government working days to three (3) as referenced in this paragraph.

A: Requirement is as stated and will remain unchanged.

1.2.4 Delivery

40. Q: Delivery of products to both CONUS and OCONUS locations shall be in accordance with individual Delivery Orders issued. The contractor shall start accepting orders upon the completion of the 20-day startup period. Delivery to the address(es) specified in each delivery order shall be within 30 calendar days for CONUS addresses, 35 calendar days OCONUS, and 45 days remote OCONUS from the date a valid order is received by the contractor, or as otherwise agreed to by the parties.

Delivery dates are acceptable for stock configurations, however configure to order systems may have longer delivery times.

A: Requirement is as stated and will remain unchanged.

Pricing Spreadsheet

36. Q: Are the quantities in the Pricing Matrix the same as the consolidated buy?

A: Yes. The quantities are a representation of the CB.

37. Q: Clarification: In the Pricing Matrix, NOTEBOOK tab, the CLIN numbers for the 64-bit AGM Load and Custom Image Load notebooks seem low. CLIN’s 0009AJ, 0009AK, 0010AJ, 0010AK, 0011AJ, 0011AK.

Will these be CONUS or OCONUS? Can you please identify the locations? CHESS:

SOW 1.2.4

A: Both to include Remote. These CLIN’s include CONUS, OCONUS and Remote

OCONUS.

38. Q: Cell B22 in the Pricing Matrix, NOTEBOOK tab, CLIN 0010AD is blank.

A: Will include description in Pricing Matrix.

Contractor 7

PC Category Technical Questions

39. Q: Will clarification be provided regarding whether the specified 32-bit AGM on most PC categories is Windows 7 32-bit?

A: The specified AGM is a specific Army provided operating system and support application that is Government Furnished Equipment which is to be loaded on Army purchased platforms. Refer to SOW paragraph 1.2.1 for more information.

40. Q: Microsoft has designated “end of sale” date for Windows 7 & 8.1 as October 31, 2016. In order for vendors to comply with Microsoft’s end of sale date, customer orders must be entered no later than September 30, 2016. Also, Microsoft will not allow vendors to launch products with downgrade operating systems on OEM Windows 7 &

8.1 after January 31, 2016. Considering this constraint, will the requirement for MS Windows 7 Pro 32 specification on all PC categories be modified to Windows 10 64-bit after January 2016?

A: The vendor shall NOT load platforms with a commercial version of Microsoft Windows and are required to load Army platforms with the GFE of the AGM.

41. Q: When any platform is required to be loaded with the 32-bit AGM, and if this 32-bit AGM is Windows 7 32-bit, it is recommended that the BIOS be set to Legacy Mode and that the motherboard be equipped with TPM 1.2. Due to the advancement of technology and the lack of support for these security standards, it is recommended that Windows 7 32-bit Operating System be transitioned to Windows 10 64-bit.

A: The SOW provided requires the support of Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) version 2.3.1 or higher and Secure Boot functionality (not BIOS) and Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version 2.0 or higher with core root of trust measurements.

42. Q: Will the Army consider dropping the Sysmark Performance Benchmarks from the processor requirements on all PC categories? Since all processors must go through a technical evaluation prior to being placed on the ADMC Contract or CB Program, testing should confirm whether or not the processors will meet the technical standard.

A: The use of SysMark application based benchmark is necessary to establish minimum performance characteristic for those processors not explicitly listed and therefore shall remain.

43. Q: The stated requirements, "Platforms shall support Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) version 2.3.1 or higher and Secure Boot functionality. The UEFI shall comply with NIST SP 800-147. The motherboard shall include an ISO/IEC 11889 compliant Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version 2.0 or higher with core root of trust measurements" conflicts with the standards for UEFI, TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot. Will these requirements be modified to state that support for Secure Boot is only required for Windows 8 and later operating systems? Will the requirements for TPM 2.0 and UEFI BIOS be modified to state that they are only required for the following Operating Systems: Windows 7 64-bit, Windows 8 and above? Secure Boot is a feature that was introduced with Windows 8 and is not supported with Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit implementations. The Windows 7 64-bit Operating System supports the UEFI BIOS, GUID Partition Table (GPT) scheme and TPM 2.0, but does not support Secure Boot (which needs to be disabled when the BIOS is set to UEFI compatibility support module). The Windows 7 32-bit Operating System does not support the UEFI BIOS, GPT scheme or TPM 2.0.

References: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt604232(v=vs.85).aspx , https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824898.aspx

A: The Army is aware of these issues and a new AGM is projected to be available by the time this contract is awarded.

44. Q: Will the DDR3 memory requirement for PC categories be modified to say “DDR3/DDR3L or better”? DDR4 and DDR5 are already on the market in commercial systems and would allow vendors to offer more current technology as part of their bid.

For the Slate and Tablet categories, will the memory specification be modified from DDR3 1333 MHz memory to DDR3L 1600 MHz low voltage memory, which is required by Intel 4th and 5th Generation mobile processors? 4th Generation Intel mobile processors are not backward compatible with DDR3 SODIMMS. This is an outdated specification. For the Thin Client categories, will the memory specifications be modified from DDR3 SDRAM to “DDR3/DDR3L or better” to accommodate changes in technology?

A: The Army is considering updating memory specifications. Outcome of that evaluation shall be reflected in the final specification.

45. Q: Due to the recent NETCOM Technical Authority (TA) memorandum which came out in October, will OPAL compliance remain a requirement on ADMC-3 for certain HDDs and SSDs? This was confirmed to no longer be a requirement beginning with CB-https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824898.aspx

22. Please confirm whether ADMC-3 will follow down the path of removing OPAL compliance as a requirement.

A: All approved TA changes made by the release date of the specification shall be incorporated in the SOW. All new Army requirements introduced after the final specification will addressed post award.

46. Q: 3.2.1 - On the performance desktop, what factor requires keeping the 5 1/4” Bay as a specification? What are most customers using this for? Desktops are moving towards smaller, more energy efficient form factors. Although this bay is available on some platforms today, that may not be the case in the future. Understanding the use case for this specification will assist vendors in being proactive with their engineering teams to communicate customer requirements.

A: The use of internal DVD drives facilitates the 5-¼ bay specification.

47. Q: 5.1.5 - For the Workstation categories, most HDDs under 1TB only have 16MB cache. Would the Army consider dropping their 32MB cache requirement down to 16MB? Otherwise, it will be difficult for vendors to offer the standard, lower cost 500GB 7200RPM HDD in the base, versus a higher cost 1 TB HDD.

A: The NETCOM TA mandates the cache size requirement.

48. Q: 5.1.6 - For the Workstation category, will the requirement for 16X DVD +/- RW be modified to 8x DVD +/-RW? The industry is transitioning away from 16X DVD +/- RW and as a result, many vendors will no longer be offering it as a standard feature, which increases the cost of continuing to provide it. In addition, the industry is moving towards smaller, more energy efficient units. This change will help achieve that.

A: The NETCOM TA mandates the DVD requirement.

49. Q: For the laptops categories, will the Army consider changing the 300 nit display requirement to 200 nits, which will allow vendors to bid lower cost units?

A: The Army requirement is as stated.

50. Q: Will the Army remove the requirement for a Minimum MobileMark 2014 runtime of 500 for all battery specifications? This places a large burden on vendor engineering resources to test all possible configurations that any customer could possibly order in order to ensure the accuracy of the result. We recommend that the battery requirements be modified to a minimum battery run-time for a generic configuration, such as 6 hours.

Battery life will vary depending on various factors including product model, configuration, loaded applications, features, use, wireless functionality, and power management settings. If MobileMark 2014 is still desired, we recommend that that the Government independently validate proposed platforms to ensure accuracy.

A: The Army is considering updating MobileMark thresholds. Outcome of that

51. Q: Will the requirement that states “The processor shall support CPU virtualization extensions (e.g., Intel VT-x of ADM-V), Input/Output Memory Management Unit (e.g., Intel VT-d or AMD-IOV), and Second-Level Address Translation (SLAT) (e.g., Intel EPT or AMD RVI).” be modified to have Intel VT-d as an optional specification that is only required when a SIPP Processor is needed? The only Intel processors that support VT-d are SIPP processors, which are higher cost than non-SIPP processors. Having the VT-d specified for all processors will increase the cost and only allow vendors to bid SIPP Processors. SIPP processors are required for vPro capability, however, some agencies require that vPro be disabled due to security concerns with out-of-band management capability.

52. Q: 11.2.1 - For the Ultra-Thin Client, can more clarification about the Operating System be published? Is the goal of this category to allow Zero Client bids which would use Teradici’s PCoIP instead of a Windows Embedded OS?

53. Q: 11.2.3 - If the Ultra-Thin Client is meant to allow Zero Clients to be bid, then would the memory spec be reduced from 1GB to 512MB? By nature, Zero Clients have little or no internal storage which makes them more secure than the traditional Thin Client. Lowering this threshold will allow vendors to bid the more secure devices customers have purchased on ADMC-2 and will continue to do through ADMC-3.

Printer Category Technical Questions

54. Q: Sections 12.1.3 and 13.1.4 indicate requirement for CAC enabled for both Printer and MFP categories. HP recommends modifying to indicate option for CAC or SIPR token enabled. The Army uses both NIPR and SIPR networks in their operating environment. The CAC only is applicable in the NIPR environment for authentication.

Adding the SIPR piece to this spec would restrict the limitation of the customer only being able to buy a printer for the NIPR network and allow the printers to be used in either environment with the proper security credentials in place.

55. Q: new requirement of 3 back-to-back-to-back Consolidated Buys per year included in Section 1.2.2 of the draft SOW for ADMC3.

From a product perspective, industry lifecycle processes may present challenges with the new requirement of 3 back-to-back-to-back CB Periods per year.

One of the major issues is the inability to update/adjust CB offerings during the period of performance of the CB. While it is understood that US Army customers should have a consistent offering to choose from, many times situations will arise from an OEM perspective that results in a product’s EOL (end of life) date changing. Outside influences from other vendors such as Microsoft and Intel may ultimately delay a new product roll out, or cause a need to change a Vendor’s offerings.

Would like to propose that CHESS allows for more flexibility in updating products during the course of the CB periods. It would benefit all parties if a technology refreshment were allowed to replace an EOL product with a technically equivalent product at the same price for the remainder of the CB period. This would allow ADMC3 customers to have the most up-to-date product available and would not limit their purchasing options, which may occur if awardees were forced to “no bid” future request for quotes due to these types of scenarios.

A: The Army initiated the use of three CBs over the year to address vendor concerns over technology refresh. Allowing vendors to make changes within a CB cycle prevents the customer from making sure that the device ordered is the device that will be delivered. This complicates configuration management, an unacceptable solution for the customer. The vendor needs to select products that are not EOL to prevent such problems.

Benefits of Flexibility:

If Vendors are able to adjust their offerings in accordance with product lifecycle changes, including but not limited to potential changes in product offerings from Intel, AMD, Microsoft, etc… the subsequent changes reflected in the CB Web Tool will allow for Army end user to have immediate knowledge of the new products and the ability to procure them. This would decrease the overall amount of Contract Modifications needed to transition products if older, outdated information is used.

CHESS could implement a feature in the Web Tool to notify Army end users of new offerings from the respective Vendors.

CHESS maintains the control in updating the Web Tool.

Vendors would be responsible for communicating the changes in platforms to CHESS, while continuing to provide evaluation units for testing and approval before updates to the tool are made.

Vendors are responsible for price matching to the older products, as well as communicating the new salient characteristics to the end user which will, at a minimum, meet the required specifications as provided in the applicable CB

Customers will receive the newest products/technology at the same price as originally offered for each respective CB period.

A: Unclear how the offering of newest products/technology is subject to EOL issues.

CHESS will create the criteria for Vendors to update/adjust products. Vendors will seek approval from CHESS for new products and outline those changes accordingly.

A: The three CBs address the Update/Adjust process.

CHESS can implement these changes in the web tool to prevent unauthorized changes by the Vendor.

We respectfully requests that the Army consider allowing for technology refreshments during the life of a CB.

A: Noted

Contractor 8

56. Q: SOW references on the Business Process Form and the SOW paragraphs. SOW paragraph 1.2.10 is titled “New or Warranted Parts” and paragraph 1.2.11 is “Telephonic Support”; however, the SOW references on Attachment 0003 are 1.2.10 “Toll Free Number” (with other entries for telephonic support) and SOW 1.2.11 asks for entries about “product problem reports”. In addition I don’t see other Attachment 0003 entries where we could enter information required by DRFP paragraph7.2.2 for business processes “for delivering products, providing warranty, order processing, order tracking and customer technical assistance in CONUS, OCONUS and Remote OCONUS locations” and SOW paragraphs 1.2.12 “Customer Technical Assistance” through1.2.18 “Security”. This apparent disconnect may result from the Attachment

0003 version posted on 10 Nov 2015 being dated 20 July 2015, while DRFP page 25 “List of Attachments” shows the date of Attachment 0003 as 15 September 2015.

Please tell us if the 15 September 2015 Attachment 0003 version addresses these issues, or if it does not, please tell us where we should provide entries for SOW paragraphs 1.2.4 through 1.2.18 on Attachment 0003.

A: All documents/attachments will be labeled accordingly to the SOW.

Contractor 9

2.1 Consolidated Buy Cycles

57. Q: Would the Government consider revising the number of anticipated Consolidated Buy (CB) cycles from 3 to 2 per year? A tri-annual CB tempo would not appear to be in the best interests of the Government from a cost-benefit perspective.

The relative benefit of introducing technical refreshes only two months sooner, when weighed against the time and resources demanded of both Government and Contractor personnel to sustain a more frequent proposal and contracting cycle, would appear to be extremely low.

A: The requirement will stay as stated as vendors are only required to refresh platform offerings once a year. The vendor has the option of updated/adjusting platforms during the other two CBs.

2.2 Small Business Set-aside

58. Q: In order to maximize small business opportunities, and per the authority provided under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240, would the Government consider incorporating explicit guidance to ordering agencies, under the “General Summary” section of the RFP, which states that individual task/delivery orders can be solicited on a small business set-aside basis?

A: See general summary page 3 of the DRFP.

2.3 Deliver Order/Credit Card Order

59. Q: Under “Delivery Order/Credit Card Order”, there is a statement that reads “Authorization must be received from the IDIQ Contracting Officer prior to release of a RFQ.” Will the language be deleted inasmuch as it does not appear that product competitions will be conducted on ADMC-3 as they were in ADMC-2?

A: Yes, this language will be deleted. Individual orders will be at the discretion of the Ordering Contracting Officer.

2.4 Task Order Delivery Schedule

60. Q: Due to the additional time demanded by the SOW to integrate capabilities, features, and customizations such as Army Golden Master (AGM) images, as well as supply chain difficulties imposed by compressed turn-around cycles, would the Government consider commensurate extensions of the task order delivery schedule?

We recommend 45 days for CONUS orders, 50 days for OCONUS orders, and 60 days for remote OCONUS orders

TAA Compliance

61. Q: Would the Government provide explicit language in the RFP to state that TAA compliance is determined at the System level?

A: Reference SOW 1.2.5 Trade Agreement Act Compliant (TAA).

All product offerings shall be compliant with TAA as defined in Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Subpart 25.4

CLIN Level Purchasing

62. Q: Would the Government insert language into the RFP to clarify that CLINs can only be ordered as part of a system and not separately as parts? As an example, please clarify that CLIN 0008AC – Webcam as listed in the Pricing Matrix can only be purchased as part of a system and not on its own.

A: Computer Accessories (CLIN 0008) are items which can be purchased as separate devices and are not bundled with system orders.

2.7 CMR

63. Q: Will FAR 237.4511, Contractor Manpower Reporting be deleted inasmuch as this is a supplies contract?

A: Yes, this will be deleted.

Past Performance

64. Q: To reflect the significant value of this procurement, will the Government revise the threshold stated under RFP 3.2.1.3 from $500,000 to $1,000,000.00? This level of past performance contract value would be more commensurate indicator of suitable experience and capability acquired from prior Federal contracts.

A: No change to the dollar value will be made. Refer to Provision 3.2.1.3.

Provision 3.2.1.3 will be revised to state: “Relevant means performance that demonstrates recent work efforts performed by the Offeror that have an average annual value of at least $500,000 and provided Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products; desktops, notebooks, ruggedized and semi-ruggedized devices, personal digital assistants, printers, scanners, power supplies, displays, video teleconferencing equipment (VTC), digital cameras, displays, transit cases and related accessories and upgrades for Army, DoD and other Federal Agencies.”

LPTA

65. Q: Under “Evaluation of Awards”, it is stated that awards will be made on the basis of a LPTA source evaluation. With eight (8) awards anticipated to be made as a result of the solicitation, the LPTA strategy will act to encourage all offerors to propose systems and equipment at the low end of product capability. In essence, the diversity of products offered by all eight awardees will be diminished. As a result, would the Government revise the source selection to a Best Value basis? This would provide evaluators the capacity to make trade-off decisions between proposed quality and price, which would not be available under a LPTA evaluation process. The breadth of technical considerations to be considered for technical evaluations include product and service characteristics ranging from product component capability/quality, supply chain risk management, warranty, customer service, environmental and energy certifications¸ and numerous others. It would appear more appropriate for the evaluation process to consider and rate these differences, while achieving a broader product mix across all contracts that would more adequately meet the wide array of Army and DoD requirements.

A: No. The Army sees the purchase of these limited number of products as commodity items whose purchase is best suited for a LPTA environment. The Army requirement is as stated. The source selection will remain Lowest Price Technically Acceptable.

2.10 Scope of ADMC-3 Contract

66. Q: Considering that the scope of ADMC-3 will be narrower than the contract that proceeded it, what is the Army’s current plan for procuring all of the products not on Consolidated Buy that would have previously been purchased within the scope of the ADMC vehicle?

A: The Army will focus all non-CB purchases to the ITES-3H contract.

2.11 Warranty Service Level for Slates, Zero/Thin Clients, Monitors and smaller printers

67. Q: Under the Warranty requirements, would the Government consider revising its minimum service level for devices such as slates, zero/thin clients, monitors and smaller printers to “Advanced” replacement rather than onsite? There are no FRUs contained in those devices, which make an onsite warranty essentially just a service call to execute a unit swap. Consequently, these calls will drive up the cost to the Government with no real value provided.

2.12 Warranty Service Level for Semi-Rugged, Rugged and Tablets

68. Q: Related to Question 2.11 above, would the Government consider removal of the requirement for onsite repair of semi-rugged, rugged, and tablet products? With the continuous diminution of part sizes in mobile products, together with the need to disassemble products that have been intrinsically sealed to meet IP and MIL ratings, and reseal them using specialized curing techniques, the potential for service error on onsite calls is very high.

SOW 3.1 PC Mark Benchmark for Processors

69. Q: Will the Government allow the PC Mark benchmark to be used in place of or in addition to Sysmark? AMD is not part of the Bapco consortium. Sysmark will not be able to provide an impartial comparison of both technologies by itself.

A: The use of SysMark shall remain as measure of application based benchmarking. PC Mark and other to be defined benchmarks may be added to complement measurement of performance.

SOW 3.2 Memory Specification for the Desktop and Notebook Categories

70. Q: Please add 4GB and 8GB DDR4-2133 non-ECC UDIMM to selection for all Desktop and Notebook categories.

SOW 3.3 USB Ports on Desktops

71. Q: Most desktop PC's still only have 2x USB 3.0 on the rear panel only. Not all PC's have 2x USB 3.0 ports on the front panel. Could the Government change this requirement accordingly?

A: Can’t locate stated requirement for front or rear panel ports. The Army USB requirements are as stated.

SOW 3.4 Army Gold Master Deployment

72. Q: The AGM cannot deploy when two (2) or more HDD/SSD's are installed in a unit.

Does the Government intend to fix this issue before the final solicitation is issued?

A: Technical issues introduced by the AGM will be resolved through collaboration between AGM team and vendor.

SOW 3.5 Workstation Memory

73. Q: For Workstation memory could the Government add an option for DDR4-2133 ECC registered memory?

SOW 3.6 Workstation Optical Disk Drive

74. Q: For the Workstation ODD, could the Government add an option for 8X DVD+/- RW Slim ODD? This will increase the availability of 5.25" external bays.

SOW 3.7 Workstation Discrete Graphics

75. Q: For Workstation discrete graphics, NVIDIA does not list its double precision GFLOPS numbers. Would the Government consider using Passmark or 3D mark scores to determine graphics card performance requirements?

A: The Army is considering updating workstation discrete graphics specifications. Outcome of that evaluation shall be reflected in the final specification.

SOW 3.8 TPM Requirement for Desktops and Workstations

76. Q: All desktop and workstation categories have a requirement for TPM 2.0 or higher with core root of trust. Current desktop products come with TPM 1.2 compliant modules.

Would it be possible to allow for the use of both TPM 1.2 and 2.0 modules?

A: Version 2.0 of the TPM is required for the Army to leverage to latest security benefits of Windows 10 AGM.

SOW 3.9 Ultra-Thin Category

77. Q: The ultra-thin client category appears to be the category where zero client devices would be proposed. Currently there is no category on the EPEAT registry for Ultra-Thin Client and/or Zero Client. Accordingly, could the EPEAT requirement for these devices be removed?

A: The Army requirement for EPEAT is as stated.

SOW 3.10 Option under the Ultra-Thin Client Category

78. Q: Under the Ultra-Thin Client category could options be added for Centralized Client Management Software, 512MB Installed RAM, DDR3-1333 memory, 6x USB ports, and WiFi: IEEE 802.11 a/b/g?

A: The Army requirement is as stated. Within Scope CLIN can be used to address users requiring items.

SOW 3.11 TPM Requirements for Notebooks

79. Q: In the Notebook computer category, Section 8.1.3, could TPM1.2 be added as an option? Not all solutions will move to TPM2.0. Most of current models are still TPM1.2.

SOW 3.12 Transfer Rate for Notebook Hard Drives

80. Q: In the Notebook computer category, Section 8.1.5, a “minimum transfer rate of 600MB/s” for both HDD and SSD is stated. It is doubtful that any drives can meet this spec except high performance SSDs. HDD transfer rate is around 100MB/s and SSD transfer rate is around 400MB/s. With the listed 600MB/s transfer rate, is a SATA III interface at 6 GB/sec specified?

SOW 3.13 OPAL 2.0 Requirements for Notebooks

81. Q: In the Notebook computer category, would the Government consider removal of the OPAL 2.0 compliant requirement, or at the minimum, remove the OPAL 2.0 requirement from the base configuration? Under the current ADMC-2 Consolidated Buy, the base configuration is using standard HDD or SSD, but there are upgrade options for OPAL compliant HDD and SSD drives.

A: The Army is considering updating OPAL compliant requirement. Outcome of that evaluation shall be reflected in the final specification.

SOW 3.14 Screen Luminance for Notebooks

82. Q: In the Notebook computer category,…