Amendment_0014_Questions_and_Answers_05_Jan_2017.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W52P1J-16-R-0172
About this file
Amendment 0014 Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 57 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS/COMMENTS AND ANSWERS - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) UC SOFT CLIENT (W52P1J-16-R-0172) | |||||||
| RFP Section | VOLUME | ATTACHMENT | PAGE | PARAGRAPH | QUESTION/COMMENT | RESPONSE | |
| 1 | Q&A, Amendment 13 | 16 | Question #14 | Vol III - Factor 1 Tech Approach | Please provide clarification on your response to Question #14, issued with Amendment 13: “The 15,000 SIPR users funded at time award represent IOC. Instructions for the price model shall be followed in accordance with the RFP.” |
This answer is in direct conflict with SOO 2.4 and creates ambiguity.
SOO, Section 2.4 Fielding Objectives states “. . .IOC shall be complete no later than contract award C+440 days;” –and- “IOC will consist of all IOC requirements being fielded to 150K NIPR users in the CONUS Southwest (SW) region”.
The SOO 2.4 Onboarding Table requires that 15K SIPR users be fielded by C+500 for the HSMCC+SW locations.
Based on the answer to Amend 13, Question 14 above it appears it is the Govt’s intent to include 15K SIPR HSMCC+SW users in IOC.
Must the 15K SIPR HSMCC+SW users be fielded to achieve IOC?
If so, the IOC date in the SOO 2.4 should be revised to C+500 to accommodate for SIPR-specific RMF and deployment activities and to reconcile with the SOO 2.4 Onboarding Table.
Should SOO, Section 2.4 read: “…IOC shall be complete no later than contract award C+500 days;” –and- “IOC will consist of all IOC requirements being fielded to 150K NIPR users in the CONUS Southwest (SW) region and 15K SIPR users in the HSMCC+SW region”?
| NIPR IOC is C+440 and SIPR IOC is C+500 as the table in Section 2.4 provides. | |||||||
| 2 | 2.1.1 | Does the USG have a preference where and from how many sites the Contractor provides services? For example, is it acceptable to the USG to support the entire Pacific Rim from one of the listed sites in 2.1.1? Pricing is dependent on these specifications and preferences. If the USG relies on the Contractors to make this decision, then how will the USG effectively evaluate the submitted proposals? For instance, one Contractor (A) might provide a multi-site design and another (B) might provide primary/backup sites for service worldwide (CONUS/OCONUS); Contractor B's costs will be significantly less than Contractor A but Contractor A's design might have better reliability and/or response time. | No, the solution proposed shall meet or exceed the objectives provided in the SOO. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP and Attachment 0003; final award decision will be made based on a trade off between technical, small business, past performance and price. | ||||
| 3 | 3.1.1-3.1.2 | SOO, Attachment 1 | 18 | For an on-premise solution, is the Contractor required to provide an SBC or will it be a DISA provided SBC? | SBC's would be contractor provided. | ||
| 4 | 2.17 | SOO, Attachment 1 | Does the Government desire to have the solution transferred to them after the initial Base Year and Option Years 1-4 (or at the conclusion of Year 5)? Based on Section 2.17 and 2.1.1, the USG expects to have licenses transferred to them at the conclusion of the Period of Performance. | The government is requesting a service for UC Soft Client. In the event any licenses were purchased in performance 2.17 states "The contractor shall identify how it will transfer ownership of any licenses purchased under this contract to the U.S. Government at contract completion." | |||
| 5 | Amendment 13 | Question 7 | Please see DoD Instruction 8100.04. The policy clearly states that “Products that provide or support UC, acquired or operated by the DoD Components, shall be certified for interoperability and information assurance (IA) as set forth in the instruction. Please clearly state if the Army requirement complies with this policy. | The Army requirement complies with this policy | |||
| 6 | Pricing Proposal | VI | 0005 | Recurring Costs | Can the Government please clarify what is meant by "recurring costs" on an annual basis in an as-a-service offer? Can the Government please define what type of costs it is meant to include? Typically on an As A Service model, there is a set price per user and potentially one-time costs. What is the expectation by the Government re: "recurring costs?" | This is provided on the price model under the base year tab. | |
| 7 | 1.2, 2.2.1, 2.3, 3.3 | Attachment 1, SOO | If known, can the Army provide information or clarification on what type of trunk facilities are available from the local Service Providers at each of the listed available sites? | This information will not be provided to all offerors, the awardee will be afforded the opportunity to conduct a site survey as provided in the SOO. | |||
| 8 | 1.2, 2.2.1, 2.3, 3.3 | Attachment 1, SOO | For DISN or PSTN integration, what is the Army's plan if the local SP cannot provide direct SIP trunks (i.e. if SP can only provide PRI, what is the Army's expectation)? | It is the expectation that the DISN and PSTN integration will be done with sites that have direct SIP trunks only. | |||
| 9 | 2.1.1 | Attachment 1, SOO | Can and/or will the Army provide an Ethernet network connection between any of the available sites that has a delay of less than 50 msec? | The Government is unsure of the purpose of this question and would need further information on what reason behind question before it can address. | |||
| 10 | 2.4 | Attachment 1, SOO | Can the Gov't please provide more detail around the concentration of users, particularly OCONUS? In order to provide a fully engineered solution and sound pricing, it is imperative that the Contractor be able to evaluate where and in how many sites instances of the solution must be implemented. | The number of users, by theater, are provided in 2.4. Users per site and location cannot be provided due to OPSEC and more specific information on users per site/camp/post/station/ will be available to the awardee. | |||
| 11 | 2.1 | SOO, Attachment 1 | SOO Section 2.1 states If the solution is hosted in an OCONUS data center, it must be on premise. Can we serve multiple installations from one location or do we need to install equipment at each one of the 6 OCONUS data centers? In other words, does Japan need to be served out of a location in Japan and Korea served from a location in Korea? | The number of locations that will be used to service OCONUS theaters will be specific to an offeror, based on their solution. The SOO does not contain a minimum or a maximum, SOO states that if hosted in OCONUS, it must be on premise. | |||
| 12 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Please provide the USG's explanation/definition of a non-cloud on-premise solution? | This information has been clarified previously and requirements for this is outlined in the SOO. | |||
| 13 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Please provide the USG's explanation/definition of a cloud on-premise solution? | This information has been clarified previously and requirements for this is outlined in the SOO. | |||
| 14 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Please provide the USG's explanation/definition of a non-cloud off-premise solution? | This information has been clarified previously and requirements for this is outlined in the SOO. | |||
| 15 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Is the distinction between cloud and non-cloud whether the solution is implemented in a Commercial data center vs. a USG data center? | This information has been clarified previously and requirements for this is outlined in the SOO. | |||
| 16 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Why would a premise solution ever require IL 5 authorization? If the answer is when it is hosted, what does that mean? Are you referring to ownership of the hardware/software? | The SRG states that regardless of hosting environment it must have the IL PA, if it is a cloud. | |||
| 17 | Amendment 13 | Questions and Answers | Does the Governments definition of non-cloud on-premise solution imply equipment must be installed on every Army Installation? | There is no requirement or objective in the SOO which states equipment must be installed on every Army installation for a non-cloud on premise solution. | |||
| 18 | 2.17 | SOO Attachment 1 | SOO Section 2.17 Licensing approach and objective This is a confusing requirement. The bid is asking for UC as a service which implies a lease. However this section talks about the contractor will transfer ownership of any licenses purchased under this contract. Why would the Government be purchasing licenses under a contract that is structured as a service? That sounds more like a LWOP or LTOP purchase arrangement. | The government is requesting a service for UC Soft Client. In the event any licenses were purchased in performance 2.17 states "The contractor shall identify how it will transfer ownership of any licenses purchased under this contract to the U.S. Government at contract completion." | |||
| 19 | We are very concerned about proposing a solution that meets what the Government intends to buy. The RFP documents and Q&A do not clearly articulate what the Government really wants. As well, several requirements and Q&A responses contradict each other. The definitions of the different hosting options are confusing and inconsistent. The evaluation criteria says a vendor must meet Gate 1 and Gate 2 to be considered acceptable and then states in Q&A that Gate 2 is not pass or fail. JITC language is not consistent with DoD policy and the Government has not clearly defined what solution require IL5/6 and RMF. Section 2.1.1 for example: Does the hosting facility have to be IL5/6 certified? Does the application being utilized to meet the UCaaS requirements ALSO have to be meet IL5/6 certifications? The language in this section is in direct contradiction to Section 2.3. | Gate 2 is experience which is an acceptable or unacceptable evaluation. Past performance is not the same as experience that is being evaluated in Gate 2. Previous question asked, stated past performance as being the same as gate 2, which it is not. The other statements in this question have been addressed previously. | |||||
| 20 | Does the Government want a UC as a service solution or does the Government want a managed service where the Government owns the solution and the contractor operates it? They are two very different approaches. This needs to be clarified and cannot be left up to the contractor to decide. It is a government issue. | Section 1.2 of the SOO clearly states what the Army objectives and requirements are for UC Subscription Services. | |||||
| 21 | We respectfully request an extension to fully understand and sort out the inconsistencies and conflicts within the requirements. The Government continues to answer questions in a manner that does not clarify the issues. Additionally, depending on the USG's responses, there is a limited number of companies that can meet the requirements as set forth in the Solicitation. As well, the RFP then basically restricts competitive participation and severly limits the application choices that can be leveraged for a response to one manufacturer. If no extension is granted, this project is at risk for a protest. | Please see closing date in Amendment 0014. | |||||
| 22 | If the contractor leverages government on-premises data centers using Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will the contractor still be required to pursue Impact Level 5 and Impact Level 6 certifications? It is our understanding per SP NIST 800-145 this does not follow the definition of cloud services. Is that also the Government’s understanding? | The SRG states that regardless of hosting environment it must have the IL PA, if it is a cloud. | |||||
| 23 | If the contractor leverages government on-premises data centers, will the government provide documentation concerning the applicable physical and environmental NIST SP 800-53 rev 4 controls? | This documentation will be provided to the awardee, if solution requires it. | |||||
| 24 | If the contractor leverages on-premise data centers, will the government be providing resources to conduct the Authorization and Accreditation (A&A) activities to obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO) or is it the contractor’s responsibility to conduct these activities? | This will depend on the solution and the security requirements specific to the proposed solution. | |||||
| 25 | Does the cloud service provider have to be IL5/6 certified AND the application being provided by that cloud service provider? | No, the solution for cloud services must be IL 5/6 certified. | |||||
| 26 | NA | SOO | Is the government willing to consider other service models that provide similar services to the NIST definition of Cloud Services? | The Government would need more specifics on which model an offeror would be considering , before it can answer this question. | |||
| 27 | Several | The confusion caused by the conflicting language and definitions of on/off premise, cloud/non-cloud/hybrid cloud, etc., has caused significant delay in finalizing Contractor's design. Because of the amount of confusion, it is requested that the USG (1) clearly document their requirements without conflicting RFP sections and various Q&A responses and (2) grant a significant response extension to give the Industry the ability to regroup and refine their solution. | Please see closing date in Amendment 0014. | ||||
| 28 | 2.1.1 | Does the USG have a preference where and from how many sites the Contractor provides services? For example, is it acceptable to the USG to support the entire Pacific Rim from one of the listed sites in 2.1.1? Pricing is dependent on these specifications and preferences. If the USG relies on the Contractors to make this decision, then how will the USG effectively evaluate the submitted proposals? For instance, one Contractor (A) might provide a multi-site design and another (B) might provide primary/backup sites for service worldwide (CONUS/OCONUS); Contractor B's costs will be significantly less than Contractor A but Contractor A's design might have better reliability and/or response time. | No, the solution proposed shall meet or exceed the objectives provided in the SOO. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP and Attachment 0003; final award decision will be made based on a trade off between technical, small business, past performance and price. | ||||
| 29 | SOO | I | 7 | references shall be for recent and relevant cloud based services. | Have one or more Southwest Asia sites been selected by the Army? | The SWA location has not been selected. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .