Attachment_0009_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 80 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W52P1J-16-R-0172
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
QUESTIONS COMMENTS
| QUESTIONS/COMMENTS AND ANSWERS - DRAFT UC SOFT CLIENT (W52P1J-16-R-0172) | 8/26/16 | |||||
| VOLUME | ATTACHMENT | PAGE | PARAGRAPH | QUESTION/COMMENT | RESPONSE | |
| 1 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | For Gate 1, can the government consider adding a scoping statement that clarifies that the UC APL Process Guide version 2.3 only applies to UC solutions that are deployed on-DoD-premises? Justification is that up to this point, the UC APL Process Guide version 2.3 does not address cloud-based UC solutions that are deployed off-DoD-premises. There are potential timelines, dependencies, assumptions and considerations for sponsoring a first SaaS UC off-DoD-premises through the UC APL. This is important given the governments statement in section 1.3 of the SOO “The Government prefers off-premise hosting wherever possible.” | In accordance with CJCSI 6211.02D, DISN Responsibilities, 24 January 2012, Enclosure B. Policy. Para 1.c. (4), The UC APL is to be the single approving authority for all DoD agencies in the acquisition of communications equipment that is to be connected to the DISN as defined by the Unified Capabilities Requirements (UCR). Therefore, no changes will be made to this section. |
| 2 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | For Gate 2, can the government consider adding a scoping statement that clarifies that Gate 2 only applies to cloud-based UC solutions that fall under the scope of DoD Cloud Computing SRG v1.2? | Hence all Per Gate 2- The Offeror shall submit its SI Level 5 and 6 PA Certification(s), and associated artifacts for its specific UC soft-client Cloud Service Offering (CSO) and therefore the offeror's proposal falls purview to DoD Cloud Computing SRG v1.2 requirements regardless weather its hosted on-perm or off-perm. Therefore, no changes will be made to this section. |
| 3 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | For Gate 2, would the US Army consider adding a statement that corresponds to the DoD Cloud Computing (CC) SRG v1.2 which requires a SAR report for each layer of the Cloud Solution Offering (CSO)? The justification is Section 1.3 of the DoD Cloud Computing SRG v1.2 which states “if CSP A instantiates their SaaS offering in CSP B’s IaaS offering, which is located in CSP C’s data center, the CC SRG is applicable to all three CSP/CSO entities for the applicable requirements.” If a vendor delivers a SaaS UC solution, which sits on top of a IaaS cloud, the vendor must provide a SAR report for SaaS and the IaaS layer. | Attachment 0002 has been updated for this Gate. |
| 4 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 5 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 6 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 7 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 8 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 9 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.2 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 10 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 3.3 | Based on the size of deployment & aggressive time schedule, would Army consider moving this voice requirements to an Extended FOC phase? For instance, integration with PSTN will require additional planning. We recommend that the Extended FOC requirement be broken out into a separate CLINs. | PSTN is not a requirement until FOC and therefore an extension to FOC is not warranted. |
| 11 | SOO | E911/911 is optional per 2.2.10 in the Statement of Objectives. How does this RFP handle the legal requirements to provide 911/E911 services? | This is an acquisition for non-assured services therefore does not address the legal requirements to provide E911/911. Assured services, C2, and E911/911 will not be replaced by the non-assured service in this acquisition. | |||
| 12 | Why is 99.9% reliability sufficient when the DoD users currently have 99.999% reliability? This degrades the service to acceptable outages occurring for 43.8 minutes per month. The current 99.999% reliability is no more than 25 seconds per month (5 minutes per year). | This is the minimum acceptable reliability the Army will accept for the UC Soft Client Service. | ||||
| 13 | How will the Army support off-premise solutions for P/C/B/S that have insufficient WAN bandwidth and without deploying QoS? | The UC Soft Client will provide the primary means of non-assured voice, video, instant messaging (IM)/chat, presence, and desktop (screen) sharing. The Army will work to mitigate insufficient WAN bandwidth as encountered. | ||||
| 14 | Is all traffic treated as best effort through the JRSS? | Currently all traffic is treated as best effort through the JRSS. | ||||
| 15 | What is the solution for communications when the WAN is down? | This service offering is not intended to replace existing systems. | ||||
| 16 | How do you support Command and Control users when the WAN is down? | Command and Control Communications are not in scope for this solution. This service offering is for non-assured services. | ||||
| 17 | If the systems fails over to a redundant system, is that considered an outage? | An outage is when more than .01% users don't have access to the service. | ||||
| 18 | How will users access the PSTN during IOC? | PSTN is not an IOC requirement for this service. | ||||
| 19 | Are IL5 and IL 6 DoD Cloud PA required for an on prem instantiation of the service? | DoD PA Impact level 5 & 6 are required for off prem and on prem | ||||
| 20 | Is the intent of this acquisition to displace the existing PBX’s and end offices? | This is outside the scope of this acquisition. | ||||
| 21 | If proprietary video codecs are allowed, who owns the responsibility to provide for standards based interoperability to the existing infrastructure? | Proposed solution shall meet the requirements defined in the DoD UCR current version. | ||||
| 22 | Does this RFP plan to standardize on one voice platform to achieve cost savings? | At IOC, all existing voice platforms will remain in place. | ||||
| 23 | How will this soft client service integrate with the Windows 10 rollout? | Offeror's solution should be compatible with all industry standard applicable Operating Systems; current intent is follow the Army's Windows 10 implementation schedule. |
| 24 | There is no stated requirement for interoperability with existing systems. Does this mean that an acceptable soft client service will not be able to make calls to existing hardware-based phones? | At IOC there is no requirement, but there is a requirement for PSTN integration by FOC so interoperability is required. | ||
| 25 | If SIP SIMPLE with an XMPP gateway is used instead of the DoD standard XMPP, who owns the responsibility to integrate to the DoD XMPP standard? | The solution must utilize DoD standards. | ||
| 26 | How will secure phones be supported? | Support of secure phones is outside the scope of this acquisition. | ||
| 27 | How will analog phones be supported? | Support of analog phones is outside the scope of this acquisition. | ||
| 28 | How will hardware-based end instruments be supported? | Hardware based end instruments are outside the scope of this acquisition. | ||
| 29 | What is the integration plan to use the existing dial plan? | There is no dial plan integration. The service will provide unique and new numbers. | ||
| 30 | What integration must the solution support for smart phones? | Offeror must provide an APP to run the UC soft client services on the smart phones. | ||
| 31 | What smartphone and tablet models will need to be supported? What is the usage scenario for these devices? | Vendors shall refer to the D.A.V.E for Government smartphone and tablet requirements. All functionality available to a desktop end user device shall be available on a mobile device. | ||
| 32 | How does the solution align to Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) and Suite B encryption? | The solution shall align with Army regulation on encryption requirements, which is well defined in current DoD and Army regulations. | ||
| 33 | 0001 | Section 1.1 | Attachment 001 – section 1.1 Cisco’s Jabber client is listed as a legacy disparate service deployed by local commands complicating the DISN. Please remove the Jabber name from this section because it is a current product that will be offered in our FedRAMP+ Cloud offer as well. By listing Jabber in this section, it may negatively impact our hosting partners from offering Jabber, which would limit solutions available to the government. | References to Jabber and Link have been removed. |
| 34 | Does the JRSS architecture today support the real time voice, video, IM&P and desktop sharing? | The UC Soft Client will provide the primary means of non-assured voice, video, instant messaging (IM)/chat, presence, and desktop (screen) sharing; regardless if currently provided in any format. | ||
| 35 | What are the requirements to make voice and video calls to the existing infrastructure? | Please refer to question 24. | ||
| 36 | UCCP does not address DRSN or VoSIP interoperability. What specifications are to be used to address this interoperability? | The DoD UC Framework 2013 or current version (http://www.disa.mil/network-services/ucco/~/media/files/disa/services/ucco/ucr2013/01_framework_2013.pdf) describes these interfaces and http://www.disa.mil/network-services/voice/multilevel-secure-voice has further information | ||
| 37 | Are standards based protocols that enable interoperability to other systems (e.g. BFCP) a requirement, or is a proprietary protocol like RDP sufficient? | The solution proposed shall be IAW the UCR 2013. | ||
| 38 | Please define what UC services must be included in a past performance example. | Please refer to Attachment 0002 Past Performance Section. | ||
| 39 | The RFP states that Voice Conferencing shall provide the ability to link together multiple point-to-point calls in a multi-party conference using a conference bridge or initiated from a telephony end instrument (EI). Are percentage utilization figures available for each client (e.g. BHCA per soft client internal to external connectivity or a user to trunk ratio)? This allows the CSP to adequately provision to meet the SLA. | Interfaces and integration are described within the SOO. Additional information is available DoD UC Framework 2013 (http://www.disa.mil/network-services/ucco/~/media/files/disa/services/ucco/ |
ucr2013/01_framework_2013.pdf).
| 40 | What are bandwidth requirements for screen sharing? | Solution designs should seek to minimize bandwidth utilization while optimizing service availability and quality. | ||||
| 41 | What are bandwidth requirements for video? | Solution designs should seek to minimize bandwidth utilization while optimizing service availability and quality. | ||||
| 42 | What is the server and version providing Defense Enterprise Email? | Defense Enterprise Email is provided by DISA-DEE information link http://www.disa.mil/enterprise-services/applications/dod-enterprise-email. | ||||
| 43 | If SIP SIMPLE with an XMPP gateway is used instead of the DoD standard XMPP, what are the throughput and performance requirements on the CSP to integrate to the DoD XMPP standard? | See question 25. | ||||
| 44 | What video codecs must be supported? | See UCR 2013 or SOO for video codec specifications. | ||||
| 45 | What QoS requirements are there? | See UCR 2013 for Non-Assured requirements. | ||||
| 46 | SOO | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | Please specify why there needs to be separate instances of the UC Soft Client Subscription Services provided for the NIPR and SIPR. | NIPR and SIPR services require separate security levels. |
| 47 | SOO | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | Please provide a list of specialized users, missions and locations that cannot be supported by this subscription services and that may need to be supported by other solutions outside the scope of this effort. | The list of specialized users, missions and locations not supported by this service is unavailable at this time. |
| 48 | SOO | 0001 | 6 | 2.1 | Will the USG consider a hybrid solution in CONUS where some equipment is off-premises and some is on-premises, if that architecture would provide better performance? If yes, would the USG allow equipment to be placed at data centers other than the ones listed in 2.1.1? | If a hybrid architecture is able to obtain the necessary certifications per the SRG to support IL 5 and IL 6 it will be considered. |
| 49 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | What are all of the operating systems and versions that are in use (desktop, laptops, tablets & mobile devices/smart phones) with which the Offeror's solution must be compatible? | The hardware must support the AGM and must support Multi-function Mobile Devices (smartphone and tablets) listed on the D.A.V.E site. |
| 50 | SOO | 0001 | 8 | 2.2.1 | 2nd bullet: What is the maximum number of endpoints required for a multi-party conference? | There is no current maximum number of endpoints required. |
| 51 | SOO | 0001 | 8, 9 | 2.2.3 | What are the lowest video rates, resolutions and frame rates ("lowest common denominator") with which the Offeror's solution will have to be compatible? | The service provided shall provide self optimization in order to provide the highest video rates, resolutions and frames. |
| 52 | SOO | 0001 | 10 | 2.2.7 | We understand the four status settings mentioned are the ones in which a user can add a description. What are ALL of the required status settings required for Presence (e.g., "idle" is mentioned in another bullet)? | The four status settings listed are consistent with industry best practices. Any other status settings provided shall also be consistent with industry best practices and allow flexibility of use. |
| 53 | SOO | 0001 | 10 | 2.2.7 | To clarify, when availability is set to "do not disturb", does the Govt wish to prevent contacts from being able to open a session with the user? | The service shall provide the end user the ability to place themselves into a Do Not Disturb availability and thus preclude other users from opening a UC session with them. Yes. |
| 54 | SOO | 0001 | 10 | 2.2.8 | We know the Army uses Microsoft Exchange and the Outlook client. What is the minimum version of the client that the Offeror's solution must support? Is there any other email client that needs to be supported? | Currently email is supported by DISA DEE. The solution should be able to support updated versions of the email client and at a minimum be able to support Outlook 2013. |
| 55 | SOO | 0001 | 10 | 2.2.10 | The USG requires compatibility with a variety of devices. Please specify which devices need to be supported/functional at IOC. | Please refer to SOO Section 2.2.1 |
| 56 | SOO | 0001 | 11 | 2.2.10 | Third bullet. Is the "local directory" referenced in this paragraph the DISA EDS, or is it some other directory? If other, please specify/identify the directory and any unique integration required. | DISA EDS is the local directory. Interfaces and integration are described and provided within the SOO. Additional information is available DoD UC Framework 2013 (http://www.disa.mil/network-services/ucco/~/media/files/disa/services/ucco/ |
ucr2013/01_framework_2013.pdf).
| 57 | SOO | 0001 | 11 | 2.2.10 | Please identify all "EI native EMAIL applications" in use. | Please see question 54. |
| 58 | SOO | 0001 | 11 | 2.2.10 | Can the Govt provide an estimate of the amount of file storage required? | As provided in this section, the solution shall provide the ability to save UC Sessions to an industry-standard file type before closing and be ready for users to retrieve anytime for a period of 30 days. This ability has to be able to support all users at IOC. |
| 59 | SOO | 0001 | 12 | 2.2.10 | Fourth bullet on page 12. Recommend that the USG change this metric from "tickets escalated to Tier III" to "tickets resolved by Tier III". | Attachment 0001 has been updated to reflect this change. |
| 60 | SOO | 0001 | 12 | 2.2.10 | Will the Offeror's Tier 3 Help Desk be required to interface with the Army ticketing system, i.e. Remedy/ITSM? If yes, please provide the specific areas of interface between the two parties. | Direct connections to existing Army ticketing/SMS will not be required.. Offerors shall propose the workflow and key interface processes between Government Tiered support organizations and Offeror's Tier 3 support organization. |
| 61 | SOO | 0001 | 12 | 2.2.11 | Are the requirements for the web client the same as for the local client? | Yes. |
| 62 | SOO | 0001 | 13 | 2.3 | Will the Govt provide scanning software and other tools it uses to attain and maintain compliance? (ACAS, HBSS, SCCM client, etc.) Will the COCO systems be included in CCRI inspections? | Contractor is responsible for licensing required software. On prem solutions fall within the scope of CCRI. |
| 63 | SOO | 0001 | 13 | 2.4 | Please provide the JRSS and MPLS implementation plan for each Base/Post/Camp/Station, so our proposal aligns with these requirements. | The deployment guidelines listed in the SOO are consistent with the known implementation schedule of these efforts. |
| 64 | SOO | 0001 | 13 | 2.5 | Is there a chart or other information that belongs with the last sentence, or is that information contained in the subparagraphs? | There is no chart or table to be included. Section 2.5 has been updated |
| 65 | SOO | 0001 | 14 | 2.6 | Will the Offeror's Tier 3 Help Desk be required to interface with the Army ticketing system, i.e. Remedy/ITSM? What is the resolution process for Tier 3 trouble tickets? Who will be responsible for maintaining the UC knowledge base - the UC contractor or the AESD contractor? | Please see Question 60. |
| 66 | SOO | 0001 | 17 | 3.2.1 | Will the USG provide the documents or a link to the documents referenced in the last paragraph on page 17? | Interfaces and integration are described within the SOO. Additional information is available DoD UC Framework 2013 (http://www.disa.mil/network-services/ucco/~/media/files/disa/services/ucco/ |
ucr2013/01_framework_2013.pdf).
| 67 | SOO | 0001 | 18 | 3.2.3 | Can the Govt define LSC and ESC? | Per UCR 2013 LSC is local session controller and ESC is enterprise session controller. |
| 68 | SOO | 0001 | 19 | 3.3 | What is the projected timeline for connectivity to CSP? | Please refer to Section 2.4 of the SOO for Fielding Objectives to meet IOC and FOC. |
| 69 | SOO | 0001 | 50 | D-8.5 | This requirement states the data will be Unclass/FOUO. Please provide clarification as to classified information being transmitted on SIPR solution. As an example, can a SECRET file be transmitted during a SIPR session? | SIPR solution must be able to safeguard SECRET level information in accordance with current DoD and Army guidance. |
| 70 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | Will the USG provide a format for the 3PAO assessment requirement? | More information on 3PAO can be found on the FedRAMP website. https://www.fedramp.gov/ as referenced in the SOO in Appendix A |
| 71 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | Is the 3PAO certification documentation and FEDRAMP information included in the page count? | Please refer to Attachment 0002 for page limitations. |
| 72 | L | 0002 | 9 | 3.1 | The initial statement requires Offeror's to provide Level 5 and Level 6 Provisional Authorization (PA) certifications. To our knowledge, there is only one Impact Level 5 instantiation in existence today and it is not for UC. Further, the requirements for Off-Premises CSPs and their CSOs for Impact Level 6 "may appear in a future release of the CC SRG". Given this situation, what alternative certification/documentation/POA&M, is acceptable to satisfy this requirement? | The requirement calls for an Impact Level 5 AND Level 6 DoD PA. No other certifications will be accepted. |
| 73 | L | 0002 | 10 | 3.1 | This section requires Offeror's to describe its experience providing and deploying UC Soft Client Subscription Services to a minimum of 100,000 users within a 12 month period. Section M.3.1.3 stipulates similar performance requirements but to a minimum user base of 100,000 users within a 36-month period. This calculates to ~33,000 users in a 12 month period, which is inconsistent with the Section L requirement. Recommend Section L.3.1 be revised to a threshold of 70,000 users in a 12 month period. | Attachment 0002 has been updated to be consistent with Attachment 0003. |
| 74 | L | 0002 | 10 | 3.2 | Will the USG provide bidders access to a reading room that has all applicable and necessary architectural documents of the "as is" environment? | The "as is" architecture is based on DISA's Cloud Services (http://www.disa.mil/computing/cloud-services/cloud-support) and the current version of the Cloud Computing Security Reference Guide (iasecontent.disa.mil/cloud/Downloads/Cloud_Computing_SRG_v1r2.pdf) |
| 75 | L | 0002 | 11 | 3.2 | Request USG provide the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Tactics, Techniques & Procedures (TTPs) and guidelines for Cloud Access Point (CAP) connection and sustainment. | This document is available http://iasecontent.disa.mil/stigs/pdf/CCPG_v1.01.pdf and has been added to the reference documents in the SOO. |
| 76 | L | 0002 | 13 | 3.3.1 | In the first sentence, we recommend this sentence be re-worded to state, "The prime contractor may submit with its …". This change will create consistency with the third sentence/paragraph which provides a definition of prime contractor. Recommend the USG include a definition for the term "Offeror" which includes the prime contractor and subcontractors (aka, teammates or team members). | Please refer to Attachment 0002 Past Performance section for updated language |
| 77 | M | 0003 | 3 | 3 | Excluding overall price of the solution, how does the government plan to evaluate two different proposals that use completely different, but approved, DoD UC APL products? | Proposals will be evaluated based upon the benefits that proposed solutions provide to the Government, based on the evaluation criteria provided in the Solicitation |
| 78 | M | 0003 | 5 | 3.1.2 | Can the USG please confirm that to be evaluated as acceptable under Gate 2 that the Offeror would need to submit both a SI Level 5 AND Level 6 PA Certifications versus one or the other? If both IL5 and IL6, then can the USG please provide examples of off-premise facilities that have achieved both their IL5 & IL6 PA Certifications? | Please see Attachment 0003 for updated language |
| 79 | N/A | 0001 | 1 | 1.1 | Why is Cisco’s Jabber client listed as a legacy disparate service deployed by local commands complicating the DISN? | Duplicate to Question 33. Please refer to answer for this question. |
| 80 | N/A | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | Is the intent of this acquisition to displace the existing PBX’s and end offices? | This is outside the scope of this acquisition. |
| 81 | N/A | 0001 | 12 | 2.2.10 | E911/911 is optional in the Statement of Objectives. How does this RFP handle the legal requirements to provide 911/E911 services | See Question 11. |
| 82 | N/A | 0001 | 7 | 2.2.1 | What integration must the solution support for smart phones? | Offeror must provide an APP to run the UC soft client services on the smart phones. |
| 83 | N/A | 0001 | 13 | 2.4 | In order to sequence UC implementation to "follow P/C/S modernization, JRSS and MPLS implementation" will the Government provide the details/sequence of these efforts?? | The schedule provided shall follow the deployment guidelines listed in the SOO. These guidelines are consistent with the known implementation schedule of these 3 efforts. |
| 84 | N/A | 0001 | 10 | 2.2.10 | Why is 99.9% reliability sufficient when the DoD users have 99.999% reliability? Current technology exceeds this standard. | This is the minimum acceptable reliability the Army will accept for the UC Soft Client Service. |
| 85 | N/A | 0001 | 16 | 2.6 | How will this soft client service integrate with the Windows 10 rollout? | How a solution integrates with Windows 10 will be vendor driven. |
| 86 | N/A | 0001 | 12 | 2.3 | Are IL5 and IL 6 DoD Cloud PA required for an on-prem instantiation of the service? | As provided in the SOO, it is required. |
| 87 | N/A | 0001 | 2.2.3 | What are the requirements to make voice and video calls to the existing infrastructure? | See question 24. | |
| 88 | N/A | 0001 | 3.4 | If SIP simple with an XMPP gateway is used instead of the DoD standard XMPP: what are the throughput and performance requirements on the CSP to integrate to the DoD XMPP standard? | See question 25. | |
| 89 | N/A | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | There is no stated requirement for interoperability with existing systems. Does this mean that an acceptable soft client service will not be able to make calls to existing hardware-based phones? | See question 24. |
| 90 | I, III & IV | 0002 | N/A | N/A | Can offerors include subcontractor experience and past performance citations for evaluation as part of the proposal? | There is a requirement for integration once PSTN integration occurs. |
| 91 | III | 0002 | 12 | c | Section L requires offerors to develop and submit a Performance work statement (PWS) but it also requires offerors to describe how portions of the work will be done and an approach to additional capabilities. Descriptions of how and approach are normally found in statements of work and not in a PWS. Is it the Government's intent to have offerors develop and submit a PWS which describes what must be done and to what measurable standard or a SOW which prescribes how the work shall be accomplished? | The government is asking for a PWS to be submitted as part of the proposal. |
| 92 | III | 0002 | 12 | c | Since the characteristics of individual Army installations vary widely, will the Government provide the details of UC user populations by Post, Camp and Station with the associated network architecture details for voice, video and security so that offerors can develop detailed architectural documents, propose accurate prices and a detailed integrated master schedule? | Please refer to Section 1.2 of the SOO and 2.4 Fielding Objectives. |
| 93 | III | 0002 | 12 | c | How many desktops and mobile devices are expected to require UC software? | 900K NIPR Army users and their devices and 100K SIPR Army Users and their devices are required UC Soft Client Services. |
| 94 | III | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | Will the Government please provide the technical specifications of the 'approved desktop and mobile devices' to be used by Army UC users? | The hardware must support the AGM and must support Multi-function Mobile Devices (smartphone and tablets) listed on the D.A.V.E site. |
| 95 | III | 0001 | 12 | c | In order to plan for the optimum end-to-end SLA and associated pricing, will the Government please provide the detailed network architecture (SIPR And NIPR) for the Government network segments of the UC service? | This procurement effort falls under DoD UC Framework 2013 (http://www.disa.mil/network-services/ucco/~/media/files/disa/services/ucco/ucr2013/01_framework_2013.pdf) pleaser refer to SOO Section 3.2.1 |
| 96 | I | 0002 | 9-10 | Section L.3.1, Gate 3 requires offerors to describe their experience implementing UC Soft Client to 100,000 users in a 12 month period, while M.3.1.3 says offerors will be evaluated on their experience implementing UC Soft Client to 100,000 users in a 36 month period. Will the Government please change Section L to match Section M? | Please refer to Question 33. | |
| 97 | III | 0002 | 11 | d | In order to design the integration points with the PSTN and DSN, will the Government please provide the network specifications and architecture by location to include connections to PBX switches? | Integration points into PBX systems is not required under this acquisition. |
| 98 | III | 0001 | 6 | 2.1.1 | What specifically is encompassed by the GFP/GFE 'facilities'? What may offerors assume will be provided by the Government? Building floor space? Power? Security? | Please refer to Section 2.1.1 of the SOO and Section L.3.2. |
| 99 | III | 0002 | 12 | b | In order to appropriately price and plan the SLA, may offerors assume 24 hour contractor access to on-premise solution components? | The draft SLA submitted with proposal may assume this. |
| 100 | III | 0001 | N/A | N/A | Is an Authority to Connect required for the UC Service? Is a Certificate of Net worthiness required? | An Authority to Connect and Certificate of Net worthiness is required and is the responsibility of the offeror, as part of the DoD PA process. |
| 101 | III | N/A | N/A | N/A | In order to develop an IMS will the Government please provide the anticipated durations for ATO and D.A.V.E processes? | More information on the D.A.V.E process can be found at http://www.disa.mil/Enterprise-Services/Mobility/DOD-Mobility |
The CON and ATC process will follow PA guidelines. ATO for SIPR and NIPR will follow current RMF guidelines.
| 102 | III | All | All | All | Will CDRLS containing information about the SIPRnet UC service be considered classified? If so, will the Government provide definitive guidance as to what is classified? | CDRLs that must be classified for SIPR will be done post award, once system is online. | |
| 103 | 0003 | 3.1.2 | DoD Provisional Authorization (PA) Stated that the PA ability with a 3PAO states within 90 days of Contract Award. Can the government guarantee the approval within 90 days? Provided requirements are met. Would an interim approval be acceptable as long as there is a risk mitigation plan in place? Would the ability to be “Cloud System in process” be acceptable during this evaluation process? | It is the offerors responsibility to meet this timeline. In the event there are delays for Government approvals it would fall under the appropriate terms and conditions of the resulting contract. Offeror is expected to propose solution that exceeds or can meet the requirement of an IL 5 and IL 6 for DoD PA in this timeframe. | |||
| 104 | 0001 | 17 | 3.1 | Currently the connection between the data and voice/video networks is a security finding, does the Army have an IA approved method to provide this connection? | The Army has an approved method for this connection. | ||
| 105 | 0001 | 5 | 1.2 | Currently, the IA requirement when connecting to DSN, only allowed PRI connectivity. Will the Army be attempting to certify the connection to DSN via SIP? | Yes. | ||
| 106 | 6 | 1.3 | The completion of a world-wide UCAS deployment is complex and will likely require a longer initial implementation period. The base period should, in our view, be a reflection of the government's best estimate on the time that it will take to accomplish the task and then to move from deployment to ongoing maintenance and management. With that in mind, we suggest the overall period of performance move from a maximum five year term to a maximum ten year term. In addition, we suggest that the base period be extended from one to three years in order to accomplish initial deployment with from 2 to 7 years of options. Will the Army revise the Period of Performance to reflect this additional term? | Please see question 110 | |||
| 107 | 12 | 2.3 | Can the Army provide a description of the specific data security element concerns that are contributing to the need for a SRG L5 classification as compared to a FedRAMP Moderate | SRG L2/4 system? Would the Army consider use of a FedRAMP Moderate | SRG L2 system in lieu of an SRG L5 system if the service provider, where technically feasible, could address the Army specific security controls on an individual case basis? | The requirement calls for Impact Level 5 AND Level 6 DoD PA. No other certifications will be accepted. | |||
| 108 | 12 | 2.3 | The current approach towards providing the US Federal Government a secure compliant UCaaS offering for sensitive but non-classified Civilian and DoD users has been formulated around the introduction of a fully redundant US based Government Only carrier class hosted system that meets the stringent requirements associated with a FedRAMP Moderate | SRG L2 controls. As indicated in the draft request for proposal, we would confirm alignment around the use of secure hosted UCaaS that is aligned more closely towards the desired scale, efficiency, features, geographic diversity, and high availability. As currently written, the desired hosted solution would likely require the creation of up to (2) two or more isolated secure compliant UCaaS platforms to address the underlying security diversity specified. Prior to proposing such an approach that would likely contribute to increased costs and platform readiness, we would encourage the Army to consider alternatives (i.e. secure private network connectivity options, data encryption, etc.) that could address individual customer security requirements that may not apply universally across a FedRAMP Moderate | SRG L2 UCaaS platform. Will the Army consider alternatives that could address individual customer security requirements that may not apply universally across a FedRAMP Moderate | SRG L2 UCaaS platform? | The requirement calls for an Impact Level 5 AND Level 6 DoD PA. No other certifications will be accepted. | |||
| 109 | Draft RFP Information | Draft RFP | 3 | 1 | PLEASE NOTE: SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: THIS SOLICITATION IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CURRENT YEAR FUNDING | ||
| (REFERENCE FAR 52.232-18, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS). *What FY17 funds are budgeted to fund the requirements of this draft RFP? | This is not information that is disclosable. | ||||||
| 110 | Draft RFP Information | Draft RFP | 3 | 1 | PLEASE NOTE: SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: THIS SOLICITATION IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CURRENT YEAR FUNDING | ||
| (REFERENCE FAR 52.232-18, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS). *Please confirm FY2017 funds are budgeted and available for the draft RFP? | This is not information that is disclosable | ||||||
| 111 | M.3.1.2. | 0003 | 5 | 1 | Gate 2 - DoD Provisional Authorization (PA). *You're requesting the Offeror shall submit its SI Level 5 and 6 PA certifications. As of today there are no vendors with that cloud environment. Can a vendor use an on-premise approach, as envisioned in the recent Army Private Cloud Environment procurement, be used to meet this requirement? | DoD PA Impact level 5 & 6 are required for off prem and on prem | |
| 112 | Section_L_UC_Soft_Client_Draft | Section L | 9 | L.3.1 | Gate 3 Experience: The Offeror shall describe its experience in providing and deploying UC Soft Client Subscription Services to a minimum of 100,000 users within a 12 month period. *In order to provide the best possible solution to the government, can Offeror be interpreted here to mean the Prime contractor and the OEM provider of the UC Soft Client? The reason for this question is that not all of the UC APL certified Soft Client solution providers can or will Prime the intended solicitation. | Attachment 0002 has been updated. | |
| 113 | L.3.1 | 0002 | 9 | All | Based on our market research, the three gating functions combined eliminate meaningful competition for this potential solicitation. *Can the government state how many potential offerors it has been able to identify who meet the combined requirements of Gate 1, Gate 2, and Gate 3? | The government anticipates adequate competition | |
| 114 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 0001 | 8 and 19 | 2.2 and 3.3 | E911 services objectives desired are not described enough to allow SLA’s to be developed. SOO Paragraph 2.2 references UCR 2013 Change 1 have E911 requirements, but does not describe service objectives. Recommend that the USG specify E911 Service Objectives public safety requirements, and service objectives towards toward NG9-1-1. Multi-Line Telephone System (MLTS) |
• The UC Soft Client 911 services shall provide MLTS services in accordance with NENA 06-750 v3, NENA Model Legislation E9-1-1 for Multi-Line Telephone Systems, dated 2/5/2011.
• The UC Soft Client 911 services shall perform Layer 3 (locations mapped to subnets) or Layer 2 (locations mapped to network switches or switch ports) to update the location of the device automatically.
• The UC Soft Client shall provide Enterprise Telecommunications Management System (TMS) E9-1-1 Mobility Services
• The UC Soft Client 911 services shall route 9-1-1 calls to any PSAP in the USA or Canada based on the location of the caller.
• The UC Soft Client 911 Applications for Softphones shall provide E911 support to softphones inside and outside of the enterprise.
• The UC Soft Client 911 for Mobile Services shall allow quick and easy location determination for mobile users. •The service shall provide services for all DoD mobility services
• The UC Soft Client WiFi E911 Services track WiFi phone locations as they move from access point to access point.
SMS/Text Capability EON
• The UC Soft Client service shall provide SMS/Text notifications through an Emergency On-Site Notification (EON) feature.
SMS/Text-to-9-1-1
• The UC Client Services shall allow SMS/Text capabilities for alert notification and communication with a PSAP as “text to 9-1-1.”
• The data center service shall communicate with Text Control Center (TCC) and shall forward emergency SMS/Text to the PSAP Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
• All Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) Private ALI (PS-ALI) databases shall be updated in real time with device location changes.
VoIP Line Management
• Emergency Calls shall be sent to the cloud when using the Soft Client or VoIP phones when it’s an IP to IP connection traveling over the internet.
NG9-1-1 Services & Capabilities
• Next Generation 9-1-1 capabilities such as IM/Chat, Video and other forms of communication shall be provided to 9-1-1 services for soft clients.
• In the Next Generation 9-1-1 environment, location of the 9-1-1 caller will be determined in one of two ways: it will be provided with the SIP based call embedded within the header as PIDF-LO or made available in response to a HELD query from the ESInet functional element.
• The UC soft client data center shall provide the ability to respond to HELD queries.
| • Interwork with national E9-1-1 routing centers shall be prepared to transition seamlessly as States and local jurisdictions migrate to Next Generation 9-1-1. | Please see question 11. | ||||||
| 115 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 0001 | 8 | 2.2 | Paragraph 2.2 states, the solution shall meet “DoD Unified Capabilities Requirements 2013 (UCR 2013) Change 1 dated June 2015 and on the DoD UC Approved Products List (UC APL)” and in paragraph 2.2.2, FOC states that the “The Solution shall be fully interoperable with the Public Switched Telephone Network and the Defense Switched Network to enable Non-Assured Voice and Video for DoD and Commercial access.” *Will the USG state that the consumer shall provide non Assured voice and video services in accordance with UCR 2013 Section 2.9.9, Section 7.3.4, and Tables 6.3-1, 6.3-2, and 7.2-3? | ||
| As provided in the SOO, the offeror shall provide a non-assured UC service which is IAW UCR 2013. | |||||||
| 116 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 0001 | 8 | 2.2 | *Or will the USG state that the consumer shall fully meet assured services requirements and non-assured services in accordance with the UCR 2013 Change 1? | Please see question 119. | |
| 117 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 0001 | 7 | 2.2.1 | *Will the USG authorize and schedule a survey for one of the represented locations listed in 2.2.1? | Surveys are conducted post award and should be accounted for in an offeror's proposal. | |
| 118 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 8 | 2.2 and 2.2.2 | With the accomplishment of IOC and FOC voice and video services, some TDM switches may have services transitioned to UC Soft Client allowing the transition and removal of TDM resources from the US Army inventory. *Would the USG consider adding a T&M or Cost-type CLIN for additional services support, such as providing transition and removal of legacy TDM voice switches when required? | Removal of legacy TDM switches is outside the scope of this acquisition. As this is a FAR part 12 procurement, cost type contracts are not allowed. | |||
| 119 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 18 | 3.2.4 | DISA Authentication Gateway Services (AGS) is referenced as middleware supporting various CAC authentication services - DISA has announced that AGS is moving towards a “Cost-Reimbursable” service (http://www.disa.mil/enterprise-services/identity-and-access-management/ags). | ||||
| *Can the Army confirm that any costs incurred by the requirement of using AGS, or other similar costs, will be considered GFE, and will be handled by the Army and not the contractor? | Any costs incurred by the requirement of using AGS or other costs paid directly to a USG agency will be considered GFE and will be handled by the Army. | ||||||
| 120 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 17 | 3.1 | References to CAP and JRSS are made for Network interfaces as well as Cloud Computing SRG v1.2. *Has the army considered the role JRSS will take on as the BCAP vs ICAP and how the expected Secure Cloud Computing Architecture (SCCA) will drive integration and service delivery discussions? | Yes. | |||
| 121 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 12 | 2.3 | *Is the Army aware that the DoD PA process can take longer than 90 days and this security requirement may limit the optimal technical solution/response? *Will the Army consider changing this to 180 days similar to other CoCo RFPs like DISA MilCloud2 Phase 1? | The Army has considered this request and the 90 day timeline remains unchanged. | |||
| 122 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 15 | 2.11 | There’s no definition within the timeline dictating when test execution and testing acceptance must occur. *Will the Army define what should trigger test execution and who provides acceptance? | The Government needs a minimum of 15 days notification prior to test and trigger for test execution is vendor driven. Government will require its representation to be present during testing and will provide final concurrence of successful test. | |||
| 123 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 10 | 2.2.8 | *Can the Army provide additional description of how the UC service should integrate into DEE service? | Vendors should describe its approach to integration based on its solution that it proposes. Defense Enterprise Email is provided by DISA-DEE information link http://www.disa.mil/enterprise-services/applications/dod-enterprise-email. | |||
| 124 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 10 | 2.2.8 | *Is the Army stating the UC Client and service must be able to read presence details associated with an Outlook Client calendar only and not have any changes be deemed required on the DEE service itself? | Yes. | |||
| 125 | UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | ||||||
| 0001 | 6 | 2.1 | The statement of “OCONUS …Services must be hosted on premise” dictate that the solution must be all on premise unless hybrid distributed hosting is allowed. *Can the Army clearly define that a hybrid of on premise for OCONUS and off premise for CONUS services is allowed? | OCONUS services are required to be hosted on premises and a hybrid is allowed as asked. | |||
| 126 | Section_L_UC_Soft_Client_Draft | Section L | 13 | L.3.3.1 | Relevant performance *Should Gate 3 experience include contracted work efforts that are currently or have been performed that provides CONUS and/or OCONUS Unified Capabilities (UC) software client services infrastructure in support of voice, video, instant messaging and/or chat, presence and desktop sharing capabilities as a cloud-based software service, since the EFIS&T component is relevant to providing the service? Relevant EFIS&T performance should also include JRSS, SBC, Voice Internet Service Provider (VISP) Gateways, MILDEP wide deployment of clients/applications, LDAP, UCR compliant Local Session Controller (LSC), Enterprise Session Controller (ESC), Session Controller (SC), and WAN Softswitch (WANSS). | Attachment 0001 has been updated. | |
| 127 | Section_L_UC_Soft_Client_Draft Volume V - Factor 3 Small Business Participation Contract Participation Matrix_Draft | Section L Section L Excel Sheet | All | L.3.4 | The USG RFP request is for UC Soft Client solution based on a pricing model of per user. Due to this is a software client opportunity all the small business participation will be behind the contractor due to the per user cost model and will be difficult to show an actual % matrix per small business participation. *Will USG consider that the contract shall submit a comprehensive small business plan as the Offeror to show good standing to ensure small business are engaged? For example, the Offeror would submit a Past Performance Subcontracting Participation table which includes contract award value, small business subcontracting goals, total value subcontracted, percentage and dollar value of large business subcontract awards, and percentage and dollar value of small business subcontract awards. The percentages and small business goals could further be defined by socio-economic category. | There is a difference between the Small Business Participation evaluation factor and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The final RFP will include a Small Business Participation evaluation factor where each Offeror will be rated on its proposed SB participation (goals based on the Total Contract Value of the specific requirement) and its commitment to small business. Commitment is substantiated by the offerors proposed effort to maximize opportunities for small businesses and how it performed against its small business goals in the past. In addition to the SB Participation Evaluation Factor, the apparent awardee will also be required to have an approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The SB Subcontracting Plan can be an individual plan, a master plan or a commercial plan; however it must be consistent with the proposed small business participation. | |
| 128 | M 1.1 | UC-Voice Attachment_0003_Section_M_UC_Soft_Client_Draft | 1 of 17 | N/A | Is the procurement a FAR Part 12 (commercial offering) or a FAR Part 15 (Negotiated RFP) with Cost Accounting Standards required? | This is considered a commercial acquisition. | |
| 129 | M 2.1 | UC-Voice Attachment_0003_Section_M_UC_Soft_Client_Draft | 2 0f 17 | N/A | What are the Governments Small Business requirements for this procurement? Will a Corporate Sub-contracting plan be acceptable? | See question 132 | |
| 130 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the Government sponsor and Industry Day to update community on the RFP? If so when is it anticipated? | The government will not be hosting an industry day prior to RFP release. | |
| 131 | SOW 1.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 6 | 1.3 | Does the proposal have to include BOTH on and off Premise solutions? | The proposal does not have to include both hosting options. The Army's preference is for Off premise hosting when possible, however depending on proposed solution some situations may require on premise hosting. | |
| 132 | SOW 1.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 6 | 2.1.2 | Is the stated Government preference for ”off-premise hosting” more desirable? | The Army's preference is for Off premise hosting when possible, however depending on proposed solution some situations may require on premise hosting. | |
| 133 | SOW 2.7 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 15 | 1 | Does the disaster recovery plan have to be hosted off-site (i.e. not on a Government facility) or will commercial practices be accepted? | Disaster recovery plan must allow for the system to be accredited in accordance with current DoD regulations | |
| 134 | SOO 3.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 10 | 2.2.8 | How will the Government integrate the work effort and requirements for Enterprise Content Collaboration and Messaging (PL EC2M) with those of the Defense Enterprise Office Solution (DEOS)? | DEOS is outside the scope of the effort. | |
| 135 | SOO 3.2.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 18 | 3.2.3 & 2.2.8 | Is e-mail part of the Third party Application Integration (3.2.3) references? | Per Statement of Objectives (SOO), section 3.2.3, e-mail users currently access e-mail services via their MS Outlook and Outlook Web Access (OWA) clients. | |
| 136 | SOO 3.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 16 & 19 | 2.1.17 & 3.4.1 | Does the Government currently have ELA’s for: Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Microsoft Lync Server and Jive-Open Fire XMPP Server? (3.4.1) | All Army ELAs are published on the Army CHESS website (https://chess.army.mil). | |
| 137 | SOO 3.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0001_UC_Soft_Client_SOO_Draft | 16 & 19 | 2.1.17 & 3.4.1 | Will the Government enter into separate Joint Enterprise License Agreements/Licensing Agreements (JELA/ELA) for this procurement if they don’t exist today? | At this time it is not the intent of the Government to enter into a JELA or ELA resulting from this procurement. However, the Government reserves the right to consider this option in the future. | |
| 138 | M-3.1.3 | UC-Voice Attachment_0003_Section_M_UC_Soft_Client_Draft | 4 & 5 | 3.3.1 | M-3.3.1 Requires that all products be on the Government Approved Product List. How will this be evaluated in an “Off-Premise Cloud”? | USG evaluation criteria for APL doesn't make any distinction between on-perm or off-perm solution. The proposed solution must be on the UC APL. |
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 .