Questions_and_Answers_Amendment_0007_15_Nov_16.xlsx

Q&A

Question 1: Could the government therefor clarify what it means in the statement “must be consistent with the proposed small business participation” if an offeror is providing a Commercial Subcontracting Plan (in addition to the Small Business Participation Attachment 0004)?

Question 2: How are these documents to be considered “consistent” or to “correlate” when they are entirely different types of documents with different goal structures? 1. If the Offeror intends to use its Commercial Subcontract Plan then the Offeror should submit an explanation along with its Commercial Subcontract Plan that shows how the SB Utilization on the current requirement will be incorporated into the goals on the Plan. This may require stating the percentages in two ways, using both the Total Contract Value and the Subcontracted Dollars as the baseline. Any major differences in the goals on the two documents shall be explained in enough detail for a reasonable person to understand what is unique about the current requirement that would substantiate such a different goal in the Commercial Subcontract Plan.

2. The Offeror shall explain how its SBU on the current requirement correlates to its overall commercial plan in enough detail to make a reasonable connection between the two documents. This may require stating the percentages in two ways, using both the Total Contract Value and the Subcontracted Dollars as the baseline.

It would be appreciated if the Government could provide a better understanding of the requirement and deployment plan by answering the following questions;

What does the Army mean by it is the intention to use this service as a compliment to VoIP?

What is the VoIP solution you reference and is it part of this solicitation in the PSTN/DSN option?

Will the UC soft client be the primary phone for the 900,000 Army personnel to get non assured service from PSTN/DSN?

How is E911 provided today?

If the Army intends this to be a bridge to assured services then why doesn’t the Government connect the UCCP UC client to an ESC?

Please answer each question so we have a clear understanding of the requirement.

relation to RFP Response and Contract Award. The SRG, v1r2 says, " While it is always desirable for a CSP to have a DoD PA before responding to a DoD cloud services RFP, DoD is not making this as a precondition or prequalification to a response or award of a contract. However, a DoD PA and a Mission Owner ATO is required to be in place before the contracted service goes into production with live DoD data."

Further it states, "Each CSP responding to an RFP that does not already have a DoD PA at the required information impact level will submit all required FedRAMP and DoD documentation relevant to being assessed for a DoD PA with the RFP response. This is so that the documentation package can be initially reviewed for completeness and the likelihood that the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ requirements are or can be met toward award of the required DoD PA. "

Pursuant with DODI 8100.04, DoD Components shall comply with functional requirements, performance objectives, and technical specifications for DOD networks that support UC, as specified in Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer (ASD (NII)/DoD CIO) publication commonly known and hereafter referred to as the “DOD Unified Capabilities Requirements (UCR)”.

The subject category in question found on the DOD UC APL is the Unified Capabilities Collaboration Product (UCCP).

Pursuant to the DOD UCR 2013, Change 1, the Unified Capabilities Collaboration Product (UCCP) supporting Voice or Video over IP (VVoIP) must comply with the DISA VVoIP Security Technical Information Guide. Pursuant to DODI 8500.1 (Defense Information Assurance Certification Accreditation Process) this is required in order to be allowed to connect to a DOD Network, and to qualify for an Authorization to Operate (ATO).

Pursuant to Version 3, Release 9 copy of the DOD VVoIP STIG published 22 JUL 2016, Rule ID: SV-23721r2_rule, SV-23718r2_rule, and SV-23719r2_rule require all VVoIP capable systems to support both 911 & E911 requirements. If the said system cannot meet the 911/E911 requirements, it is recognized as a Category II finding which has to be mitigated before the Component DAA can issue an ATO. In addition to 911/E911 requirements there are specific VLAN & VPN requirements that have to be adhered to for interconnecting remote soft clients that support VVoIP.

According to your answer to Question 31, “It is not the Army's intention to provide E911 as part of this service.” Section 1.2 Scope states NIPRNet UC Soft Client Service will connect to PSTN, DSN, or other Voice Systems. Per the policy above, your statement and scope appears to be in violation of DoD policy. Please correct.

Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx GENBAND is pleased to offer the following response to the Army DRFP for Unified Capabilities Soft Client Subscription Service. Due to the extremely short timeframe given to evaluate the draft documents, our response is limited to a few high level conceptual comments that could provide the Army with huge benefits. As the manufacturer of the market leading “carrier grade” ESC/LSC solution for EVoIP and UC, our comments are focused around technology and deployment.

GENBAND’s Value Proposition for DoD

· Common infrastructure for all DoD users – C2, non-C2, mobile, NIPR/SIPR

· GENBAND commercial UC feature suite and applications available to DoD

· Leverage Army’s existing investment in EVoIP to support UC

· Over 1 million RTUs that can be upgraded to VoIP/UC at significantly lower cost

· DoD compliant, secure and highly reliable

· Flexibility to deploy UC client of choice-GENBAND soft client or Microsoft Lync

· Low risk implementation as GENBAND is currently majority of Voice installed base

For the most part, the Unified Capabilities requirements in the DRFP are clearly stated and very achievable today. However, the current approach is a significant compromise for the Army. The DRFP does not take advantage of the multiple certified solutions that are currently available on the JITC APL.

I think the real question for the Army is how to implement a SIP based Enterprise VoIP/UC solution that maximizes the investment that has already been made. There are two pieces to that question, what technology should the Army use and what deployment model should the Army operationalize? The size and scale of the Army migration from TDM to EVoIP/UC is only matched by the transition that is occurring with leading carriers globally. Given that many of the global carriers are using carrier grade technologies for similar transitions, it is imperative that the roadmap chosen be supported by a proven leader with a track record in executing transitions similar to what is being requested by the Army.

The Army is at a major crossroad in technology. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been invested in Voice, Data, and Desktop infrastructure. The current DRFP does not address preserving this investment. The data network is certainly being built out to support VoIP traffic and the PCs will be used to support UC soft clients. There is also significant investment in voice equipment and much of it is VoIP enabled. However, there is no incentive for the system integrators to leverage any of the existing voice infrastructure. The impression by the integrator community is the Army wants a “greenfield replacement” to replace the “tired iron”. The DRFP does not even suggest that reuse is even a welcomed value added solution. It is important to remember that none of the bidders will consider this approach unless it is mentioned by the Government in the requirements. In reality, the SL100/CS2100/AS5300 carrier grade voice platforms installed today have a VoIP/UC roadmap that allows the Army to achieve their goals with more functionality, less disruption, faster deployment and at a cheaper cost than any other vendor approach.

Additionally, the Army is going to be in for a potential surprise when the UC implementation starts. The voice feature requirements in the DRFP are nowhere close to what is being provided on the TDM switches today. Having supported the Army I3MP program for many years, I can attest to the significant customer dissatisfaction that will come from not having the voice features necessary to function in a day to day military environment. This does not have to be the case. Full featured JITC certified VoIP/UC application servers exist today that closely match the feature capabilities that the Army relies on to achieve their mission requirements.

· One infrastructure to meet the needs of all Army users, built upon GENBAND’s industry leading Experius Application Server.

· Benefit: Market-leading, competitively-driven features and capabilities

· Market-leading Enterprise UC services with certified, Assured C2 UC services, combined on a single platform

· Benefit: Simplified Enterprise architecture, lower TCO

· Build upon cloud architecture. Virtualization and survivability aligned with customer needs.

· Benefit: Aligned with ongoing DISA and MILDEP investments

· Open standards to integrate with the installed base and other vendors

· Benefit: Best-in-Breed solutions for the War fighter

· Preserve the value of the existing GENBAND installed base. Maximize reuse and migration credits toward VoIP/UC

· Benefit: Evolutionary migration based on mission requirements and budgetary constraints

It is also highly recommended that the Army reconsider their decision to separate UC from eVoIP necessitating parallel networks. As one of several JITC approved eVoIP/UC OEM vendors, GENBAND believes that deploying UC separate from VoIP creates an unnecessary discontinuity in the Army’s IT strategy. The Army should avoid overlapping communication infrastructures which increase deployment/operational complexities and the Army’s total cost of ownership (TCO). Our technical approach can provide a complete EVoIP/UC environment or if the Army prefers we can fit into a Microsoft environment where the GENBAND Application Server could voice enable the Lync Client providing a carrier grade single network for both C2 and non C2 users. This is very different than the Microsoft voice deployment. Our UC solution will provide the Army with a rich set of features on a common network with the highest reliability that offers real value.

GENBAND also believes that the Army should be seeking solutions that are compliant with DoD interoperability standards and JITC certification but also allow vendors to present their future JITC roadmap to include technologies that could be incorporated during the Initial Operating and Final Operating Capability. An example of that is GENBAND's SPiDR™ WebRTC Gateway that provides an intelligent bridge between traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) networks and the open ecosystem of the Internet. SPiDR facilitates the deployment of universal applications, drastically reducing both the CAPEX and OPEX costs related to VoIP services. Designed using HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript, and leveraging SPiDR's REST APIs, our clients provide a multimedia user experience and allow subscribers to easily access their services from any web-capable device, or deeply integrate with the operating system via GENBAND's patent pending Omni Client Technology.

On the deployment side which would apply to any Integration Partner (since we do not sell direct), there are two areas of concern. FEDRAMP 5 and 6 certification and the contract format of 1 year with four 1 year options. REDRAMP in the 90 days after contract award remains a huge challenge for the system integrators as well as the required investment to build the UC application servers to support the user community with only a 1 year contact commitment. Two challenging items for any integrator

In summary, GENBAND believes that integrating the Army’s planned eVoIP C2 user network with non-C2 users is the most cost-effective and mission focused approach for delivering UC. The GENBAND technical solution offers several important advantages:

Single, simplified user experience. We can provide a single client and user experience by consolidating UC and mission critical voice and video avoiding the need to differentiate between C2 and non-C2 users, tools, and interfaces reducing operational complexity and confusion.

Carrier-grade performance. Army UC would take on the same carrier-grade reliability, scalability, and security characteristics as GENBAND eVoIP.

DoD APL Compliant, Open Standards Based Solutions. GENBAND is fully committed to standards and interoperability with DoD networks.

Less duplication, lower cost. A single, tightly integrated UC and VoIP solution, rather than two duplicative platforms, reduces enterprise-wide IT complexity, minimizes the system hardware footprint, reduces the IA accreditation burden, and lowers the cost of operational support/sustainment lowering Army’s TCO.

Expedites and simplifies migration to IP and UC. Integrating the UC solution with the legacy voice infrastructure and leveraging the VoIP/eVoIP architecture under current deployment offers the Army a means to rapidly deploy and enable UC across the enterprise with less risk.

Investment protection. GENBAND can provide investment protection by crediting existing TDM voice licenses, reusing phones and other assets, as appropriate.

Interoperability with current office applications. GENBAND can integrate with Microsoft Lync and other enterprise applications.

GENBAND would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Army to have a detailed discussion around your embedded base and the way forward. The Army has a tremendous investment in Nortel equipment and with the right upfront planning and execution you can migrate that investment to a very cost effective Enterprise VoIP/UC deployment at a cost far lower than many realize.

image1.emf

NETCOM/9TH ASC TECHCON

Implementation Memorandum

U.S. ARMY ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITY

Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-7070

NETCOM/9TH ASC TECHCON

Implementation Memorandum Number 2004-014

Enterprise Telephony Firewall Management (ETFM) System

Date of Issue: 28 Feb 2005

Date of Required Compliance:

Date of Expiration/Suppression:

1. Background. This Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Technical Control (TECHCON) Implementation Memorandum provides the guidelines defining the NETCOM requirement to implement and use the Enterprise Telephony Firewall Management (ETFM) System. Implementation is accomplished through the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP) based on available funding. NETCOM is the proponent for technical integration and coordination in support of installation implementations.

Implementation was scheduled by installation based on Power Projection Platform/Power Support Platform (PPP/PSP) designation. This TECHCON is based on implementation guidelines developed in coordination with Regional Chief Information Officers (RCIOs) and on best practices derived from initial implementation of the Southwest Region.

a. Data and telecommunications networks are now clearly and irrevocably joined, and the junctions between the two infrastructures are increasing. Both infrastructures are now perceived as critical to the successful operation of the enterprise. The vulnerability of these conjoined networks is the increased risk of exposure and access to the enterprise’s sensitive information.

Each infrastructure contains inherent weaknesses that have been and continue to be exploited by insiders and outsiders to the detriment of the enterprise.

b. There are a variety of strategies for protecting the enterprise from the potential vulnerabilities of conjoined networks. These strategies include writing and enforcing policies that spell out the manner in which the two network infrastructures can be connected, redefining existing security solutions, and deploying enterprise telephony management and security solutions--a new class of solution designed to safeguard conjoined networks.

c. The fielding of the ETFM system platform significantly improves the management and security of the Army’s voice network. The ETFM platform consists of server hardware, appliance sensors, and three separate software applications. These are: TeleWall, a telecommunications firewall; TeleAudit, a call usage and reporting tool; and TeleView, an infrastructure management and monitoring tool. The ETFM platform will help detect (and if needed, stop) unauthorized modem connections and give commanders “real time” situational awareness into the voice network.

2. Authority. The Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Army Signal Command (NETCOM/9th ASC) is the Army’s single authority to operate, manage and defend the enterprise level infostructure. NETCOM has technical command and control and configuration management authority for the Army’s critical networks and systems. NETCOM also has operational review/coordination authority for any standards, system, architecture, design, or device that impacts enterprise level Army infostructure and Network Operations (NETOPS).

This is in accordance with the NETCOM Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Version 1, 26 Nov 02 and the draft CONOPS for ETFM.

3. Operations. The Theater Network Operations and Security Centers (TNOSCs) are directly charged with establishing and enforcing the enterprise policy. Enterprise policy is based on a deny all, permit by exception template which enforces rules established in accordance with AR 25-1. Garrison Commanders determine which calls are deemed authorized and report this information through the Regional Chief Information Officers (RCIOs) to the TNOSCs. The RCIOs ensure adherence to this TECHCON and assist installations and NETCOM with initial coordination, identification and implementation of enterprise rules sets, and authorized telephone object numbers. Appendix A is the list of ETFM rules being applied. Application of a particular rule is tailored to the requirements of the supported installation. With some exceptions noted at Appendix A, the DOIM in coordination with the Garrison Commander determines their scope and applicability. Under the current SecureLogix software release being implemented, permissions to both establish enterprise rule sets and making telephone object changes reside within the same permission level. Based on this, the TNOSCs (or Regional (Battalion) NOSCs) are the only authorized organizations able to change the Enterprise policies, and therefore the permission levels. Future versions of software separate these permission levels and the TNOSCs will provide installations the permissions to change telephone numbers at their installations once the software is fielded. Fielding began in October 2004 for installations that have the ETFM System installed.

4. Conceptual Architecture and Reporting.

a. The ETFM System comprises expandable, managed appliances, which are deployed as a customer premise device on trunks. These appliances, which are controlled by remote servers, support a number of existing security and management applications and allow for expansion to support future applications. The ETFM System is managed from a remote client, which can be used to manage multiple servers and hundreds of appliances. The figure below provides a high level overview of these ETFM System components.

Reporting

•NETCROP

•RCIO

•DOIM

b. The ETFM system has been inserted into the existing Network Common Relevant Operating Picture (NETCROP) and situational awareness reporting process. This is the same process used for reporting other Enterprise data systems. Reporting requirements, in accordance with Army Signal Regulation (ASR) 25-6, are met by using Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) traps, which feed applicable TNOSC tools to compile NETCROP and situation reporting.

5. Summary. This TECHCON Implementation Memorandum ensures all installations are operating within the parameters of the NETOPS CONOPS and ETFM System Architecture.

This provides a secure telephony network, provides the mechanism for the TNOSCs to perform their required NETCROP and situational reporting to the Army NOSC, as well as provides an additional tool for installations to perform their telephone management functions.

APPENDIX A

Draft Enterprise Telephony Firewall Management (ETFM) System Policies

Rule 1. Permit all 911 calls in CONUS.

Rule 2. Terminate all modem calls except those identified as authorized by the Garrison Commander/DOIM.

Rule 3. Terminate all spam calls as identified by the Garrison Commander/DOIM.

Rule 4. Terminate all calls to known Internet Service Providers (ISPs) except those modem calls specified as authorized by the Garrison Commander/DOIM.

Rule 5. Terminate calls, which incur charges such as information calls, i.e., 411/555 unless authorized by the Garrison Commander/DOIM.

Rule 6. Terminate known porn numbers/suspected terrorists numbers, as identified by the G2 to the Garrison Commander/DOIM.

NOTE: More stringent policies may be identified and quickly enforced during FPCON levels as identified by the DOIM and coordinated with the TNOSCs.

image2.emf