Answers_to_Questions.pdf

1. For Information Assurance, please confirm that vendors must demonstrate track record of past performance in fielding ENS system in a *.mil domain for enterprise-wide use in scale and scope.

This is not an enterprise-wide system. It would only be for the Michigan National Guard.

Past performance needs to be relevant to the type of work that is required. It does not specify that it is work performed by the military.

2. Will there be an opportunity to demonstrate the proposed ENS capability?

Demonstrations will not be required at this time.

3. Please confirm that selection is based on best value criteria and not lowest price technically acceptable.

Per FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items in the solicitation, the source selection method is best value.

4. The referenced RFQ does not appear to require a formal written technical proposal and/or compliance matrix but rather only that past performance references and an official Quote are required. If this is the case, how will the government evaluate compliance with the technical requirements?

As a clarification a technical proposal is required in which the vendor addresses the requirements of the PWS. These proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

5. If response to questions is not provided by 26 July 2016, will the government consider a

4 day extension on vendor responses from the day the government provides answers back to these questions to allow industry time to respond in the most effective manner?

The solicitation has been extended until 5 August 2016.

6. Do you currently have an ENS system in place? If “YES” what is the system currently in use and are there artifacts that will need to be moved over to the replacement system?

Yes, but there is not equipment or infrastructure, so removal is not required.

7. Please revalidate the requirement to be able to send out 45K-50K Text messages per min and 25K-30K Voice and Email messages per min?

Per the PWS:

4.6. The contractor will provide an ENS that provides the following minimum delivery rates:

4.6.1. Deliver Text Messages at a rate of 45,000 – 50,000 per minute

4.6.2. Deliver Voice Messages at a minimum of 25,000 – 30,000 per minute

4.6.3. Deliver Email Messages at a minimum of 25,000 – 30,000 per minute

8. With the number of supported users at only 10K, it is not clear why the requirement is written as such. DoD requirements stipulate that all personnel be notified within 10 minutes of a critical event. Will the government consider revising this requirement both in terms of the estimated number of text, voice and email messages and the time limitation to better align with the 10K users?

The purpose of the MWN solution is to notify the MING/DMVA employee community only.

9. Given the nature of ENS solutions, some cost is determined by expected data usage (ie text and voice calls). Will the government provide estimated annual number of text and voice messages that will be used to support 10K personnel?

Alerts and notifications are impossible to estimate due to emergencies not having schedules. It is anticipated that the majority of notifications will involve office land lines, emails, and personal cell phones.

10. The solicitation states. “The contractor will provide an ENS that integrates with existing lists from human resources systems and other directories. The contractor will also provide the ability to update the lists as personnel changes and sync data.” Can you please provide additional information on what human resources systems are currently being used and their associated file formats? (ie., LDAP, ADPASS, active directory, CSV, XLS etc).

Multiple systems are used within the military. The solicitation is focusing on a solution that will interact with multiple databases. These databases can change over time, which therefore requires a solution that will be compatible, and adaptable to what is currently being used throughout the human resources industry.

11. The Solicitation states: “The contractor will provide an ENS that is capable of auto-translation into a minimum of English, Spanish, Latvian, Polish, and Swedish.”

Auto translation for multiple languages within an ENS system designed for fast, clear messaging in a crisis situation introduces potential for miscommunication, errors and may necessitate intervention to manually modify messaging. The two most common languages in the U.S. are Spanish and English and are supported by most ENS solution providers. The requirement for Auto Translation and support for Latvian, Polish and Swedish will significantly limit competition, potentially to only one source. Will the government consider either removing this requirement or making it an optional requirement?

No, the requirement will not be removed. The military has international partners that participate in exercise and are often present at our facilities. The intent is to provide them with notification capability as necessary. Limiting competition is not the intent, but rather it is a requirement and we are seeking to find vendors that can provide this.

12. Please provide additional information on how the 43 organizations will be structured and operate with respect to the implemented ENS.

There are 43 locations in the State of Michigan, not 43 separate organizations.

Scope. The contractor will develop and implement a Cloud-based Emergency Notification System at forty-three (43) locations in the State of Michigan. The estimated number of users is 10,000 personnel.

13. It is believed that the following Dept of Defense INFOSEC and Information Assurance

(“IA”) requirements apply for the required ENS however are not included in the subject

RFQ.

Because this ENS capability is intended to reach military personnel, please confirm that it must reside on the *.mil domain for US Dept of Defense mandatory INFOSEC and IA requirements.

The solicitation is for a “Cloud-based Emergency Notification System.” There is to be no notification software installed, or residing, on the *.mil domain.

Scope. The contractor will develop and implement a Cloud-based Emergency Notification at forty-three (43) locations in the State of Michigan. The estimated number of users is 10,000 personnel.

14. Please confirm that the ENS capability must have the Army’s Authority-to-Operate

(ATO) and Certificate-of-Networthiness (CON) for mandatory INFOSEC and IA requirements.

Not applicable, no software or hardware will be purchased or installed.

15. Please confirm that the ENS product must be on the DISA Approved Product List

(APL) to ensure that it has been tested and has met all INFOSEC and IA requirements.

Not applicable, no software or hardware will be purchased or installed.

16. Please confirm that that the ENS capability must have a Statement of Records Notice (“SORN”) for protection of personally identifiable information (PII).

“4.3 The contractor will provide an ENS that allows users to include supplemental contact information including additional phone numbers and email addresses through a secure, password-protected site.”

17. Please confirm that for email alert delivery, emails message must be PKI signed per

INFOSEC requirements.

DAA authorization / approval.

18. (Paraphrased) If your location already owns a perpetually licensed MNS that meets the

DoD MNS standards set forth by the DoD Unified Facility Criteria, why is another system being solicited?

Our research indicates that the current system in place would not pass the CCRI inspection and upgrades to the current system are not available. In order to update to the most current platform, substantial investment into equipment was going to be needed. It is also our position that we are moving away from move away from software based systems to help ensure ease of maintenance and reduce cyber security issues.

19. (Paraphrased) If DoD MNS does not mandate alerting translation to Spanish, Latvian, Polish, and Swedish, why is this in the requirement?

Because the MIARNG has international partnerships, military personnel from foreign countries visit and train with MIARNG personnel. If a product can be found, which will translate emergencies into a person’s home language, it is incumbent on the hosting agency to consider this opportunity. In times of crisis, people resort to training and often without knowing so. If one has ever encountered a person of foreign decent, often times when panic and emergencies arise, they will often revert to their home language without knowing they do so. We must consider all ways to notify all persons within the Michigan National Guard environment.

20. (Paraphrased) If our company is capable of providing professional services for translation upon request, would that be acceptable?

If emergency notification is reliant on contacting a third party to translate, all that will be translated are death notices. Time is of the essence and robust notification platforms should be researched, which can provide for as many options and circumstances as possible. The window for emergencies should be focused on the first 90-150 seconds when an emergency occurs. Contacting “professional services” is just another tasking people do not have time to do nor should they have to consider doing simply out of the time delay this will occur.

21. (Paraphrased) Why is the Michigan National Guard seeking a new system when the current system may be customized, which is different than what is used at NGB?

Large military installations have police, fire and EMS response capabilities. States have armories and installation scattered throughout the state (the virtual installation or fort concept) with no police, fire, and EMS response capabilities. Each location is dependent upon local response capabilities when an emergency occurs. The same is for MWN.

Each state must look at what its own state, counties, and local 911 centers are doing with respect to emergency and notification. National Guard properties must take into account local emergency planning in order to achieve success. Aligning with an enterprise or national MWN system will not assure success because of the vast differences in Federal, state, and local response capabilities.

22. (Paraphrased) If the Michigan National Guard already owns a perpetually licensed system why are they seeking to replicate or duplicate services and capabilities?

It is our understanding that the current Desktop Alert would not pass the CCRI inspection and upgrades to the current system are not available. In order to update to the most current platform, substantial investment into equipment was going to be needed. It is our understanding that the movement is away from a software-based system to help ensure ease of maintenance and reduce cyber security issues.

23. (Paraphrased) Why is a new system being pursued when it would be less expensive to upgrade the existing system?

It is our understanding that the current Desktop Alert would not pass the CCRI inspection and upgrades to the current system are not available. In order to update to the most current platform, substantial investment into equipment was going to be needed. It is our understanding that the movement is away from a software-based system to help ensure ease of maintenance and reduce cyber security issues. In addition, we require a system, which allows for rapid training, a common appearance on all devices capable of transmitting and emergency notification, and one that works best for the Michigan National Guard.

24. (Paraphrased) Why isn’t the Michigan National Guard pursuing the same system that is installed at several other Federal facilities?

Many Federal facilities have first responder capabilities. Not all facilities with the Michigan National Guard have response capabilities including Police, Fire, and EMS resources. MIARNG locations do not have any of these capabilities.

25. (Paraphrased) Will introducing another mass notification system complicate the alerting process for the locations in the Michigan National Guard?

We are of the opinion this will simplify the process rather than complicate it. We cannot use the currently system because it did not pass a Cyber inspection. Therefore, the MIARNG does not have a usable system in place.

26. (Paraphrased) Will managing multiple alerting systems put mission success at risk?

We believe this will simplify the process rather than complicate it. We cannot use the currently system because it did not pass a Cyber inspection.

27. (Paraphrased) Doesn’t an adjustment within DoD ongoing plans have an emphasis for an on premise MNS with a reach to the Cloud for SMS, Phone, Inter Agency Alerting

Product specifications within the Performance Work Statement will meet all of these capabilities.

28. (Paraphrased) Isn’t Inter Agency Alerting required to be a part of Michigan's future alerting standards?

The specification within the Performance Work Statement will meet this requirement.

29. (Paraphrased) Will you modify the solicitation to include a requirement that the new system must integrate with the current system?

The Michigan National Guard is pursuing an Emergency/Mass Notification System that will fulfill our needs and meets cyber inspections. It is not a requirement at this time for the new system and old system to be integrated.