prod.nais.nasa.gov · web viewpc and (f1)mac version (desirable) comment: thus far we can find an...

SEWP V DRFP Questions and Answers

Set 7

May 13, 2013

This question was incorrectly answered in Set # 6 Question 36:

Question 36: If a Federal customer initiates a SEWP purchase using the FedBid procurement tool, please confirm that it is permissible for SEWP V contract holders to include the associated FedBid fees as a line item in their resultant SEWP quote using the DELIVERY-Z variably priced CLIN? It is important that this be a separate CLIN because FedBid collects their fee at the beginning of the contract. The end user customer would be more aware of the cost of using FedBid when it is shown as separate CLIN.

Revised response: The maximum catalog price a vendor may charge under the SEWP contract is a contractual fixed price term of the contract between SEWP and its vendor, which cannot be exceeded on any particular delivery order to account for transaction fees, surcharges, etc., particular to any single order, such as a fee charged by private purchasing agents. Accordingly, SEWP customers who chose to utilize such agents, and vendors who chose to take orders placed through such vendors have at least 2 options, including, but not limited to: 1) the vendor may offer to include the cost of that service in their bid price, but may not violate their maximum SEWP catalog price obligation under the SEWP contract by adding the service fee on top of that contractual maximum price; 2) the customer may separately order and pay for the agent’s service. As noted, increasing prices over and above the SEWP maximum contractual catalog price is not an option to cover a non-SEWP service. SEWP customers are not to be charged higher than the vendors maximum contractual price on SEWP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 1: Reference paragraph 3.2.1.1 Hardware Configuration (Mid-Range Cluster) ‘Each node shall be connected to two different internal networks: 1GbE for management and a 10GbE for data. Minimum requirements are provided for the 1GbE management switch, however, there are no mandatory minimum specifications provided for the 10GbE data switch requirement. Did the government intend to include mandatory minimums for the 10GbE data switch similar to the High-End Cluster in 3.2.2.1.h?

Answer: No – the 10GbE requirement is for the high end cluster. This will be clarified in the final RFP.

Question 2: Reference paragraph 6.1.10.b.1 Network Diagnostic Tools and the PED.xlsx Class Database worksheet A portable Hardware based network protocol analyzer such as a Fluke? The Product description for 6.1.10.b.1 does not match the Group D Class Database. Row 26 of the Class Database specifies a “Software based Remote Monitor (RMON) probe”. This description is listed as a desirable feature (6.1.10.b.1). Should the description in the class database be changed to “Network Diagnostic Tools”?

Answer: The worksheet will be corrected to read "Portable Hardware based network protocol analyzer”

Question 3: Reference paragraph 6.4.d. Computer Rack Enclosure Did the Government intend to specify a height specification for the racks?

Answer: The size specifications - minimum of 84"H x 24"W x 48"D - will be added.

Question 4: Reference paragraph 6.3.2.a.4. and the Minimum Mandatory price sheet, Did the Government intend for the requirement to be 45Hz rather than 35Hz?

Answer: MMD will be corrected to read 45HZ

Question 5: 3.1.3.1 a: May a proposed server be configured without hard disk if Boot from a shared storage device is desired, e.g. iSCSI-boot, SAN-boot?

Answer: No.

Question 6: 3.2.1.1.d (3) (a): Will NASA consider changing the requirement to allow new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of 40 GbE networking?

Answer: No.

Question 7: 3.2.1.1.d (4)(a): Based on current industry offerings, would NASA consider allowing this requirement of 36 Tb of storage to be met with a shared storage target which may be accessed via standard storage protocols, e.g. iSCSI, NFS, CIFS?

Answer: No.

Question 8: 3.2.1.1.e.3.i. : Based on current industry offerings, would NASA consider allowing this requirement of 36 Tb of storage to be met with a shared storage target which may be accessed via standard storage protocols, e.g. iSCSI, NFS, CIFS?

Answer: No.

Question 9: 3.2.2.1.d.2)(a): Will the Government please clarify if "next generation socket compatible" refers to the next generation Intel CPU, code-named Ivy Bridge?

Answer: The next generation Intel CPU would meet the desirable feature.

Question 10: 3.2.2.1.d.4)(a): Will NASA consider changing the requirement to allow new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of 40 GbE networking?

Answer: No.

Question 11: 3.2.2.1.d.4)(a): Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 12: 3.2.2.1.d.6)(a): Will NASA consider changing the requirement to allow new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of 40 GbE networking?

Answer: No.

Question 13: 3.2.2.1.e.4)(a): Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 14: 3.2.2.1.f.1): Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 15: 3.2.2.1.f.1)(a): Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 16: 3.2.2.1.f.4)(a)(i): Will the Government please clarify if "next generation socket compatible" refers to the next generation Intel CPU, code-named Ivy Bridge?

Answer: The next generation Intel CPU would meet the desirable feature.

Question 17: 3.2.2.1.f.7)(a): Based on current industry offerings, would NASA consider allowing this requirement of 36 Tb of storage to be met with a shared storage target which may be accessed via standard storage protocols, e.g. iSCSI, NFS, CIFS?

Answer: No.

Question 18: 3.2.2.1.f.10)(a): Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 19: 3.2.3.1.1.e.5.: Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 20: 3.2.3.1.2.c.5.: Will NASA consider new fabric and/or networking alternatives that provide similar speed and efficiencies of Infiniband networking?

Answer: No.

Question 21: 6.1.7: We suggest that NASA consider interoperability capability between radio systems and VoIP as a requirement due to industry adoption of this technology.

Answer: This extra functionality can be proposed in discussing advanced technologies or exceeding the minimum and also offered through items in the available components list.

Question 22: 6.1.8.h.: Suggest that NASA also consider G.711 (mu-law and a-law), G.722, G.722.1, G.723.1, G.728, G.729A/B,iLBC


Question 23: 6.1.8.i.: We suggest that NASA consider a requirement for Service Advertisement Framework (SAF) which allows Dynamic configuration of dial plans between call agents which allows for ease of deployment.


Question 24: 6.1.8.j.: We suggest NASA consider Visual voicemail capabilities in addition to traditional audio voicemail retrieval.


Question 25: 6.1.8.j. (Call Forwarding): We suggest that as industry is migrating from "Call forwarding" to Single number, this should be included as an additional requirement to call forwarding.


Question 26: 6.1.8.j.(Pick): Please clarify - does NASA intend this to read "Call Pick Up"?

Answer: Yes

Question 27: 6.1.8.j.: We suggest NASA consider the following additional features be added as requirements in section 6.1.8: Extension Mobility, Cross Cluster Extension Mobility, Send Call to Mobile Phone, Desk Pick Up, Dial Via Office, Computer Telephony Integration (CTI), Extend and Connect (Ability to control any IP/analog deskphone from UC client), Auto Attendant, Do Not Disturb, Phone Controlled Call Recording, Enhanced Locations Based CAC, Support for URI Dialing.


Question 28: 6.1.8.1: Would NASA consider renaming this to read "UC Clients" to be more in line with Industry terminology?

Answer: The RFP will be updated to note that UC Clients can also be offered and described as advanced technology.

Question 29: 6.1.8.1: We suggest NASA consider requirements for UC Mobile Client support on Android and iOS to include the following features: VoIP, IM/Presence, Two way video, Conferencing, Desktop/Screen share, Visual Voicemail.

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to submit a full depth and breadth of product offerings which will be evaluated for consideration for contract award.

Question 30: 6.1.8.1: We suggest NASA consider requirements for UC Desktop Client support on Windows and MacOS to include following features: VoIP, IM/Presence, Two Way Video, Desktop Share, Conferencing, Visual Voicemail, LDAP Integration, XMPP support for Presence, CTI.


Question 31: Attachment A: Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.8, Paragraph e - The specification stated in 6.1.8.e requires, "Scalable to support at least 25,000 simultaneous users." Based on our market research, there are only two original equipment manufacturer (OEM) product lines that meet these specifications. With this in mind, would the government consider revising these specifications to a lower scalability (i.e., less than 25,000 simultaneous users) in order to allow for a greater number of proposed OEM product offerings for this requirement?

Answer: The Government may consider this request if more information is provided - specifically: what is the recommended change? "Lower scalability" is not sufficient to update the requirement.

Question 32: Attachment A: Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.5.1, Paragraph e - The specification stated in 6.1.5.1.e requires, "1 or more packets over SONET OC3 interface." Based on our market research, this requirement restricts the Government's options to an extremely limited selection of manufacturers. With this in mind, we request the specifications be revised to allow for greater competition in this product group.

Answer: The specification will remain as stated.

Question 33: Attachment A: Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.5.2, Paragraph e - The specification stated in 6.1.5.2.e requires, "4 or more packets over SONET interfaces up to OC48." Based on our market research, this requirement restricts the Government's options to an extremely limited selection of

manufacturers. With this in mind, we request the specifications be revised to allow for greater competition in this product group.


Question 34: Attachment A: Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.5.1 Paragraph "Medium Network Router" - The specification stated in 6.1.5.1 requires is limited to medium network routers. Based on our market research, a requirement that includes only a high-end network router (i.e., medium for all applications) restricts the Government to an extremely limited selection of manufacturers. With this in mind, we request the specifications be revised to allow for greater competition in this product group.

Answer: It is not clear what the question is specifically requesting. The minimum mandatory requirements are a sample set of requirements which must be met for a proposal to be considered for evaluation. Other routers can be included in the available component list which is evaluated for the depth and breadth of offerings as it relates to providing a full spectrum of products across the entire SEWP scope. If there is something else that this question is referring to, we require more specificity.

Question 35: Attachment A: Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.5.2 Paragraph "Large Network Router" - The specification stated in 6.1.5.2 requires is limited to large network routers. Based on our market research, a requirement that includes only a high-end network router (i.e., large for all applications) restricts the Government to an extremely limited selection of manufacturers. With this in mind, we request the specifications be revised to allow for greater competition in this product group.

Answer: It is not clear what the question is specifically requesting. The minimum mandatory requirements are a sample set of requirements which must be met for a proposal to be considered for evaluation. Other routers can be included in the available component list which is evaluated for the depth and breadth of offerings as it relates to providing a full spectrum of products across the entire SEWP scope. If there is something else that this question is referring to, we require more specificity.

Question 36: 6.2.2.a.: We suggest NASA consider requirements for virtual anti-spam appliances as well as (or replacing) hardware as more flexible and industry-available alternatives to the hardware solutions.


Question 37: 6.2.7.g.b.: Please clarify - should this read "TCP" not "TSP"?

Answer: Yes - it will read TCP.

Question 38: A.1.20 (d) - Please clarify if 7 days after issuance is 7 calendar days, or 7 business days.

Answer: 7 Calendar Days.

Question 39: Market Research Requests (MRR) are more similar to a Request for Information (RFI) than a Request for Quote (RFQ). Therefore we recommend they be treated as similar requests, and allow vendors to respond to MRR with items not yet listed on their SEWP Contact.

Answer: The terminology and definition will remain as stated.

Question 40: If you do not take the recommendation of removing the requirement of responding with only contract items for MRRs, we request you provide your definition of Market Research. What are the differentiating factors of a Market Research Request (MRR) and an RFI that require all items in the MRR be on the vendor’s contract in order to respond? Additionally, what are the differences in a Market Research Quote and a Market Research Request?

Answer: The difference is that an RFI does not have to have all items on contract while an MRR does. That is the only difference we are making between these two terms within the SEWP Program. Market Research Quote is a response to a Market Research Request.

Question 41: We think the vendor should not be responsible for items returned due to an error on part of the government. We request a change in this requirement to note that the Government is responsible for any charges in this instance, in accordance with the contractor’s return policy.

Answer: The Government will review the wording of this section to make it clear that the return policy is not related to Government related changes.

Question 42: Please confirm the raise in admin handling fee from .45% (currently on SEWP IV) to .75%

Answer: The contract only stipulates the ceiling for the fee. The actual fee will be determined at contract award. It is unlikely to be higher than the current fee of 0.45%.

Question 43: A.1.27. (c) - This section mentions a fee cap, but there is no mention of this cap elsewhere in the RFP. If there will no longer be a fee cap on an order basis, please remove this language.

Answer: The wording will remain. The Government reserves the right to update the fee to have or not have a cap.

Question 44: A.1.27. (b)- If there is still a fee cap on an order basis, we request the removal of this requirement. Incorporating the admin handling fee into the order (and no longer including it on the invoice as a separate CLIN) removes the contractor’s ability to place a cap on the fee.

Answer: The clause will remain as stated. If a fee cap is in place, the Government will work with industry as to how to implement it.

Question 45: A.1.27. (b) - Since discounts proposed shall apply throughout the life of the contract, vendors are likely to mitigate the risk of a fluctuating admin handling fee by incorporating the ceiling .75% in their total price offering. If you were to keep the admin handling fee as a separate CLIN, it provides vendors more stability on their margin and will promote vendors to offer greater discounts, as this risk is eliminated.

Answer: The fee will be included in the price of the products and therefore that should be considered in setting the proposed discount structures.

Question 46: Since not all items on contract require TAA compliance, we recommend BAA clause 52.225-1 to replace this TAA compliance clause.

Answer: The Trade Act Agreement (TAA) is required for all mandatory items and to meet applicable FAR clauses, all contractual items not meeting TAA compliance must be noted as such and can only be purchased if the issuing agency can cite an exception as identified in FAR 25.401. Note that the Buy American Act (BAA) does not apply to IDIQ commercial IT contracts such as SEWP except as required by specific situations such as ARRA funded orders. In those cases, the BAA should be applied at the Delivery Order level.

Question 47: If you do not take the recommendation to replace this clause with BAA clause 52.225-1, we request a modification of A.1.37 and any reference to TAA compliant product. As noted in the definition of TAA (compliant) on page 43” This act requires that contractors must certify that EACH end product meets the applicable requirements. (emphasis added). As TAA compliance is required for only a select number of mandatory products, we request it clearly be noted this requirement is only applicable to these MANDATORY products. (emphasis added)

Answer: The Trade Act Agreement (TAA) is required for all mandatory items and to meet applicable FAR clauses, all contractual items not meeting TAA compliance must be noted as such and can only be purchased if the issuing agency can cite an exception as identified in FAR 25.401.

Question 48: A.3.12.1 Excellence of Proposed Systems. Available Components/Instructions. The instructions reference the third SOW Acquisition Objective, while the evaluation criteria for this tab (page 144) notes the list of available components will be evaluated for its support of “the first two Acquisition Objectives”? Please clarify.

Answer: This will be clarified in the final RFP.

Question 49: A.3.12.2. Offerors support and Commitment. The instructions note that offerors shall demonstrate how policies would further second and third acquisition objectives. The evaluation criteria (page 145) for this same tab notes this section will be evaluated for its support of the third, with no mention of the second. Please clarify.

Answer: This will be clarified in the final RFP.

Question 50: 6.2.7.m.: Steady advances in computing and in the science of cryptanalysis have made it necessary to adopt newer, stronger algorithms and larger key sizes. Older algorithms are supported in current products to ensure backward compatibility and interoperability. However, some older algorithms and key sizes no longer provide adequate protection from modern threats and we therefore suggest NASA replace the dated requirement with newer, stronger requirements. AES-GCM/GMAC (128-, 192-, and 256-bit keys) IKEv2 payload encryption and authentication ESP packet encryption and authentication SHA-2 (256-, 384-, and 512-bit hashes) ESP packet authentication Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) (groups 19, 20, and 21) IKEv2 key exchange IKEv2 Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) (256-, 384-, and 521-bit elliptic curves)

Answer: Offerors can describe the various algorithms, etc. provided in the Technical proposal for evaluation purposes.

Question 51: 6.2. (New Sub Category): We suggest that NASA include a network based IPS requirements to provide intrusion prevention against common threats such as directed attacks, worms, botnets, Structured Query Language (SQL) injection attacks, and the like.


Question 52: 6.2. (New Sub Category): We suggest NASA include requirements for full-featured stateful inspection firewall with enhanced application inspection capabilities. Basic application inspection is supported on all major protocols. Enhanced inspection is available on HTTP, FTP, Instant Messenger, File Sharing, SIP, H.323, SCCP, SMTP, ESMPT, DNS, RPC, CIFS, MSRPC, and NETBIOS. With the enhanced application inspection features, it is possible to exercise a great deal of control over the behavior of network communications using those protocols. The framework improves control over applications by introducing the ability to have flow- or class-specific firewall and inspection policies, QoS policies, connection limits and timers, and more.


Question 53: 6.2. (Consideration): We suggest NASA consider a change to the web proxy requirements. The Internet is one of the most critical and evolving information technology services a corporation relies on to conduct daily operations. Because of this, it is also one of the most highly sought-after attack vectors by criminals seeking to gain a profit through the use of malware. We suggest the Web Security solution requirements include a high-performance proxy solution with URL filtering, Layer 4 Traffic Inspection, Dynamic Web Filtering, Spyware protection, Anti-Virus protection.

Answer: Offerors can describe their proposed web security solutions, etc. provided in the Technical proposal for evaluation purposes.

Question 54: 6.2 (New Sub Category): We suggest NASA consider requirements for an 802.1x solution for Identity-based networking service for authenticating and authorization of users, and devices. The proposed platform then uses this information to make proactive governance decisions by enforcing policy across the network infrastructure utilizing built-in, standards-based controls for wired, wireless, and Remote Access users.


Question 55: 6.2 (New Sub Category): We suggest NASA consider requirements for a network device authentication solution that provides RADIUS and TACACS+ services for access control management and compliance.


Question 56: 6.1.10. (a): Can NASA please clarify what is meant here by "portable"? Does this simply mean an external device that can plug into a switch port? What if the traffic is brought to the "probe". I.e using RSPAN, ERSPAN, or Netflow types of technologies?

Answer: Yes - it means an external device that can plug into a switch port.

Question 57: 6.1.10.b.1. : The RMON requirement is dated technology and inaccurate with > 1 Gbps links. We suggest NASA consider an update to the requirement to current standards, to include Netflow collection capabilities.

Answer: The Government will review the desirable feature to determine if it is still relevant.

Question 58: 6.1.10.b.3. Circuit test equipment: We suggest NASA consider IEEE 1588 time stamping as a requirement on the list of protocols. This ensures a standard way of high fidelity clocking, so that more granular analysis can take place on packet captures and monitoring.

Answer: This is a desirable product - there are no specific requirements.

Question 59: 6.1.2.1.: We suggest NASA consider removing mention of the Cisco 1200 as it is no longer sold. Current Cisco Generation2 indoor access points are the 600, 700, 1600, 2600 or 3600 AP.

Answer: The Government will update the reference.

Question 60: 6.1.2.1.d.: We suggest NASA consider an update to these requirements to "Support 802.11b, 802.11g , 802.11n and 802.11ac (optional) interfaces"

Answer: There is no need to update this minimum mandatory. If more support is provided, the offeror can include that information in exceeding the minimum.

Question 61: 6.1.2.1.d.a. : We suggest NASA consider that support for 802.11n should be the minimum desired 802.11 technology.

Answer: There is no need to update this minimum mandatory.

Question 62: 6.1.2.2.: We suggest NASA consider updating this to reflect currently available technology and say "Wireless LAN Manager such as the Cisco Prime Infastructurewired/wireless LAN management solution shall meet the following:"

Answer: The Government will revise the example.

Question 63: 6.1.2.2.a.: We suggest NASA consider adding requirements that the device (wireless management solution) should also have the ability to monitor and configure controllers, and have advanced wireless intrusion prevention and location tracking.

Answer: Additional capabilities can be described in the appropriate technical sections of a proposal for evaluation.

Question 64: 6.1.2.3: We suggest NASA remove mention of the Aironet 1420 as it is no longer sold. For short distance bridging needs, Cisco now offers 1552 outdoor access points.

Answer: The Government will revise the example.

Question 65: 6.1.2. (New Sub Category): We suggest NASA consider an additional Wireless requirement, such as the example requirements below: 6.1.2.4 Mobility Services Engine for wIPS and location tracking Mobility Services Engine such as the Cisco 3355 MSE ( virtual or physical appliance ) shall meet the following: a. Capable of Wireless Intrusion Prevention (WIPS) to protect and mitigate against advanced wireless threats, rogue wireless devices, and denial-of-service (DoS) attacks b. Capable of tracking and tracing interferers, rogues, Wi-Fi clients, and RF tags.


Question 66: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.a to be consistent with the RFP wording in 3.1 Core Specifications, please add the words, where applicable to the spreadsheet and change it to 3.1.a. All mandatory products, where applicable, are EPEAT certified.

Answer: The technical exhibits are not meant to be exact reproduction of wording in the RFP. They are references/pointers to the RFP, where the exact requirements are being stated. If there are any differences or ambiguities between the exhibits and the RFP, the requirements in the RFP are the official requirements.

Question 67: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.b to be consistent with the RFP wording in 3.1 Core Specifications, please add the words, where applicable to the spreadsheet and change it to 3.1.b. All mandatory products, where applicable, are Energy Star compliant.


Question 68: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.c to be consistent with the RFP wording in 3.1 Core Specifications, please add the words, where applicable to the spreadsheet and change it to 3.1.c. All mandatory products, where applicable, are 508 compliant. An example of where 508 is not applicable is the actual container product. Since the container is not EIT (Electronic & Information Technology), Section 508 would not apply.


Question 69: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.e to allow for manufacturers of Mid-range clusters, please change this wording to: 3.1.e. either a manufacturer of or an authorized reseller for Mid-range cluster. Also, please allow for a Y/N Response and if N, provide POC.

Answer: The RFP will clarify that a manufacturer is by definition an authorized reseller of their own products. The POC response will still be part of the spreadsheet - if the proposer is the manufacturer, they can reference themselves as the POC.

Question 70: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.e to allow for manufacturers of High-end clusters, please change this wording to: 3.1.e. either a manufacturer of or an authorized reseller for High-end cluster. Also, please allow for a Y/N Response and if N, provide POC.


Question 71: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.e to allow for manufacturers of class 3a container solutions, please change this wording to: 3.1.e. either a manufacturer of or an authorized reseller for class 3a container solutions. Also, please allow for a Y/N Response and if N, provide POC.


Question 72: MMA.xlsx, 3.1.e to allow for manufacturers of class 3b container solutions, please change this wording to: 3.1.e. either a manufacturer of or an authorized reseller for class 3b container solutions. Also, please allow for a Y/N Response and if N, provide POC.


Question 73: MMA.xlsx, 3.2.1.3.a.1, , 3.2.1.3.a.2, 3.2.1.3.a.3, 3.2.1.3.b.1, Since the RFP states that the system shall support these products, please add the word Supports before the words Application Software.

Answer: The RFP will clarify that the offeror must both support and provide these software products. The wording in the exhibit is a summary reference to the official wording in the RFP itself.

Question 74: MMA.xlsx,3.2.1.3.a.1.i, 3.2.1.3.a.1.ii, 3.2.1.3.b.1.i Since the RFP states that the system shall support these software products, please remove these items from the spreadsheet, since they are related to the way to purchase the licenses.

Answer: The RFP will clarify that the offeror must both support and provide these software products. The wording in the exhibit is a summary reference to the official wording in the RFP itself.

Question 75: Answer to Question 5, Q&A Set 1 and 3.2.1.3.b Please confirm that the RFP requires that the Class 1 computer system supports the software listed. We do not read this requirement to say that an Oracle Database 11g R2 Standard edition must be priced with the system. The answer to question 5 states that this must be priced with the system. This would not create a level playing field since Oracle is a possible bidder. If the intent is that the systems support the listed software please change the answer to the question and delete (i) one new License per Processor (max 4 sockets) unlimited use.

Answer: The RFP will be clarified to allow for alternate database solutions to be provided.

Question 76: 3.2.1.3.a.1.i, 3.2.1.3.a.1.ii Application Software since the RFP states that the system shall support these software products, please remove these items from the RFP, since they are related to the way to purchase the licenses.

Answer: The RFP will clarify that the offeror must both support and provide these software products.

Question 77: On 3.2.2 High End Cluster - Section f requirements for 464 "Data Nodes" and requirements for 16 "Compute Nodes" be totally separated, because it is better practice for "Compute Nodes" NOT to be as richly configured with storage (i.e. up to 36TB) as "Data Nodes" while having a primarily compute function. In the interest of greater competition we request that in addition to the "Compute Nodes" requiring support for GPU (Item 10) the requirement for disk storage be for up to 6TB of disk.

Answer: The requirement remains as stated.

Question 78: 3.1.4.2. Programming Environment Does this section apply to the Class 3 Container systems? The compilers are not shown in MMA.xlsx under the Class 3 Container section. Please clarify.

Answer: The RFP will clarify that the compiler requirements are not included in the container section.

Question 79: The requirement states 4 copies of the SF 1449's. According to the Proposal Format and Organization, the offeror is required to submit one original plus 4 copies; should the requirement state "The offeror shall sign five original SF 1449's?" or should each copy of the model contract (total of 5 copies) have 4 signed SF 1449's, for a total of 20 copies of the SF 1449?

Answer: Offeror shall submit a total of five signed SF 1449’s.

Question 80: Does the Government intend to identify the information it expects to see in the Executive Summary of the Management / Technical Approach? Information provided in Section L only provides guidance on Tabs 1 - 8, and excludes the Executive Summary which is listed in Section A.3.7.

Answer: The executive summary is an overview of the highlights of your proposal. It is included in the 90 page limit of the Management/Technical Approach Volume.

Question 81: Suggestion - To provide clarity with regard to proposal structure, we suggest either organizing Sections A.3.12 in accordance with the Tabs OR organize the Management/Technical Approach Tab Description to include the Subfactors A-C.

Answer: It is not clear what this comment refers to. The structure of A.3.12 is a sequential structure matching the Tab submissions. Under A.3.12.1 Excellence of Proposed Systems (Subfactor A), the information for Tabs 2 through 5 is listed in order of those Tabs; Under A.3.12.2. Offeror's Support and Commitment (Subfactor B) the information for Tabs 6 and 7 are listed; and under A.3.12.3. Management Plan (Subfactor C) the information for Tab 8 is listed.

Question 82: Please confirm that there is only 1 tab for the Past Performance volume and that name of the tab is "Past Performance Volume" OR Respectfully suggest that Tab 1 be "Information from the Offeror" and Tab 2 be "Summary of Deviations/Exceptions"

Answer: Tab 1 is the minimum mandatory spreadsheet. The RFP will be updated to remove the reference to TAB1 from the Past Performance section.

Question 83: Does NASA require a point by point response to FAR 9.104 and all subparts?

Answer: No.

Question 84: Can the SEWP V team please clarify what type of information is being sought in this section? Is specific information, including pricing and product codes, required as part of the response or is general information on Offeror’s capabilities in some or all of these areas desired?

Answer: As defined in section 1.5.3.: If a technical section contains the term “advanced technology”, then the section identifies advanced capabilities that provide the Government with significant added benefit. These are typically features that are either at the cutting edge of technology or for which standards (industry or de-facto) are still forming.

Question 85: Please verify the following part number: TK-323. The model number appears to be wrong and should in fact be Kenwood TK-3230k. Also, please note the TK-3230k is not TAA compliant.

Answer: The reference will be updated.

Question 86: We respectfully suggest that 2-way radios be removed from the network section or that the part numbers be replaced with TAA compliant part numbers.

Answer: The part numbers provided are examples only and are not required.

Question 87: "It is strongly recommended that the SEWP V Program Team provide design specifications for a “standard” VoIP solution such that all competing companies can provide like-for-like responses including Bill of Materials and pricing. In addition to the mandatory requirements provided, the standard solution design in the final RFP would include, at minimum: (a) The number of stations; (b) The number and type of network facilities (i.e., T1/PRI, analog loop-start, etc.); (c) Number of total end-users that will require voice mailboxes; (d) Any automated attendant functionality; (e) Any call center or hunt group requirements (i.e. number of agents, skills-based routing, etc.); (f) Faxing requirements; (g) Self-service needs (IVR); (h) System management tools; (i) Whether UPS is required and length of holdover time; and (j) Redundancy requirements. "

Answer: This section is not a minimum mandatory and therefore is not priced in the mandatory pricing table. It is advanced technology which indicates that it is optional and the offeror should provide information on the types of technology in this area that is included in their list of proposed available components.

Question 88: A.3.10.3 Please clarify if the cited paragraph and content gets counted twice against the page count?

Answer: A.3.10.3. has information regarding how to fill out provided exhibits. There is no response directly related to this section.

Question 89: Since 48" is no longer a standard size, we would suggest that the size requirement be adjusted to 77" or 84".

Answer: The Government will review this specification.

Question 90: Most interactive white boards come with an integral projector. Is this required?

Answer: No. It can be included as an available component.

Question 91: This item does not include a lens. We would suggest one is added to the requirements.

Answer: The Government will clarify that a lens must be included.

Question 92: 6.3.1.B This item does not include a lens. We would suggest one is added to the requirements.

Answer: The Government will clarify that a lens must be included.

Question 93: 6.3.1.D. Could the SEWP team provide more information on what is required? The information provided does not allow us to provide product and pricing against minimum specifications.

Answer: The specification can be met in whatever way the offeror wishes as long as it meets the basic stated requirement. If there are requirements that cannot be met by current technology, they should be explicitly noted.

Question 94: 6.3.2.B. Should we assume that you are requesting an LCD display with LED lamps?

Answer: The offeror can respond with any offering that meets the stated requirements.

Question 95: 6.3.2.B. Secure areas cannot utilize a display with built-in Wi-Fi. Should there be a second set of requirements that include a "no Wi-Fi" option?

Answer: Other capabilities should be offered as part of the available components.

Question 96: 6.3.2.C. No mount options were included in the list of requirements. We strongly suggest one be added as part of the mandatory minimum specifications.


Question 97: 6.3.2.D. The paint on these is very customized. Unless each kiosk will be a custom project, we would suggest adding more details to the MMR list.

Answer: Each purchase and each item purchased on SEWP is in essence a customized item. The minimum mandatory items are sample offerings. The full spectrum of products meeting the breadth and depth of SEWP should be offered as available components such that end=users can obtain any product falling within SEWP’s scope.

Question 98: 6.3.3.A. Currently, the only specification is one 46" LCD display. To make a video wall, either one very large or several smaller displays (such as a 2 high by 6 wide wall), wall or ceiling mounts, a video processor, a control system and knowledge of the number of inputs would be required. Can more detail be provided?


Question 99: Can the sensor be capacitive instead of optical?

Answer: No.

Question 100: 6.1.1.5.: Would the Government consider removal of the requirement in section 6.1.1.5 as generally obsolete? Today, most switches default with ports being shutdown.

Answer: There is nothing in 6.1.1.5 about ports. 6.1.1.5 concerns the equipment becoming operational on power-up or restart without intervention.

Question 101: 6.1.1.6.b.: Can the Government please provide more information to clarify the requirement in section 6.1.1.6.b?

Answer: All routers shall be capable of acting as a bridge and provide the ability to filter bridge traffic using user defined rules.

Question 102: 6.1.4.b.: Would the Government consider the inclusion of 802.1w and 802.1s in the requirements in section 6.1.4.b?


Question 103: 6.1.4.1.b: We recommend the Government consider removal of the ATM-related requirement in 6.1.4.1.b as it is obsolete and generally no longer supported.

Answer: ATM requirements will not be in the final RFP.

Question 104: 6.1.5.2.g.: We recommend changing the requirement in section 6.1.5.2.g from desirable to required as it is now industry standard.

Answer: There is no need to change this from a desirable feature

Question 105: 6.1.5.3.2.a.: Would the Government consider making the requirement in section 6.1.5.3.2.a a desirable feature, not required? While this is commonly supported, it is not commonly implemented on routers and therefore we believe it shouldn't be a mandatory requirement.

Answer: The requirement will remain as stated - it is only mandatory for this sample product/configuration.

Question 106: 6.1.5.3.2.b.: Would the Government consider making the requirement in section 6.1.5.3.2.b a desirable feature, not required? STP is not a common requirement for routers.

Answer: This will be changed to a desirable feature.

Question 107: 6.1.5.3.3.a. We recommend the Government consider the inclusion of IPv6 in the TCP/IP requirements of section 6.1.5.3.3.a

Answer: The requirement remains as stated.

Question 108: 6.1.5.3.3.a.8.b.: The requirement for DVMRP in section 6.1.5.3.3.a.8.b is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove this requirement.

Answer: This will be changed to a desirable feature.

Question 109: 6.1.5.3.3.b.: This technology in section 6.1.5.3.3.b is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove these requirements.

Answer: This is not a mandatory requirement and will remain as stated.

Question 110: 6.1.5.3.3.c.: This technology in section 6.1.5.3.3.c is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove these requirements.


Question 111: 6.1.5.3.3.d.: This technology in section 6.1.5.3.3.d is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove these requirements.


Question 112: 6.1.5.3.3.e.: This technology in section 6.1.5.3.3.e is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove these requirements.


Question 113: 6.1.5.3.4.l.: The technology in section 6.1.5.3.4.l. is obsolete and not supported in current network devices. We recommend the Government remove these requirements.


Question 114: 6.1.5.3.5.b: Though currently offered, the 100baseFX technology in section 6.1.5.3.5.b is nearly obsolete and won't be supported in future network devices. We recommend the Government update this requirement.


Question 115: 6.1.6: Would the Government consider removal of the requirements in 6.1.6 as ATM switches are obsolete?


Question 116: 6.1.1.1.5: We recommend removal of the ATM requirements and sub-requirements in section 6.1.1.1.5 as obsolete.


Question 117: 1.6.1. Section 508 Information All proposed mandatory products must meet applicable 508 requirements. MMA.xlsx 3.1.c. All mandatory products are 508 compliant Y/N While this vendor is very supportive and involved with the evolving Section 508 regulations, we are requesting that NASA

remove the requirement that all proposed mandatory products must meet applicable 508 requirements for Category A and instead require the submission of VPATs for all mandatory products. Since all the cluster configurations described in Category A include products from multiple companies, bidders are not able to control other company’s accessibility and the choices are limited. An example of this is the choice of two operating systems each bidder would include. The published VPATS for both operating systems take exception to at least one 508 criteria. Also many, if not all bidders, would bid a particular Cluster Toolkit to fulfill 3.1.4.2 Programming Environment. The VPAT, as published on the internet, for this product also takes exception to several criteria. If all bidders abide by the currently written requirement that all proposed mandatory products comply with the applicable 508 requirements, we do not think any company would be able to bid to Category A.

Answer: The underlying point in the comment is correct – it is the Government, not Industry, who determines 508 compliance. Industry must indicate how 508 compliance is met and the most common methodology is through the VPAT. This requirement will be clarified in the RFP.

Question 118: Would NASA consider separating the EPEAT flag for iv N so that there is a way to show Not Applicable separated from Non-compliant?

Answer: The EPEAT flag will be updated to include NA (Not Applicable) and NC (Not Compliant) as 2 separate options.

Question 119: A.3.13. Past Performance May a small business Prime bidder submit past performance from it's team members as part of the past performance volume?

Answer: Past Performance will only be evaluated from the Prime Offeror.

Question 120: III. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS COMMERCIAL ITEMS (52.212-1) (FEB 2012); A.3.14.2. Structure and Content of Price Proposal: The offeror shall also submit an electronic copy of their published price catalog or published schedule of list prices as back up for list price information supplied in the pricing exhibits (see A.3.14.3). Concerning pricing exhibit PEC the following questions are submitted: Question 1. Some macros are non-functional (price calculations for discounts work for the first line item, but do not calculate correctly from then on, thus negating the roll-up or summary sheet), and the spreadsheet is very large (requiring over 47mb). Does SEWP intend to rectify these issues prior to final RFP release? Question 2. Notes (in the columns) are often unrelated. When we review the Computer System (sheet) for Code, Description Subgroup, Discount and Price all relate (to Computer Systems). In the next 18 categories, the same note appears (with reference to Computer System s). Descriptions should change when in the different category (there are 19 categories) , including storage device, software, communication devices and so forth . Does SEWP intend to change this oversight, prior

to final RFP release? RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider checking/correcting PEC macros, and changing note wording - to match the appropriate category.

Answer: The spreadsheets are purposely large to ensure that there are no artificial or misunderstood limits to the size of offerings in the available component worksheets. The comments will be corrected. The spreadsheet is working correctly. The formulas are connected to the various worksheets. As you enter available components into a sheet, the pricing information is used to calculate the average proposed discount. To test your spreadsheet formulas, go to the computer system spreadsheet; in row 6 enter $100 in column G(List Price) and 5 in column H (Classification Subgroup Discount).Column I will automatically be set to 95. Then go to the Available Components worksheet . Row 6 column B will have 0.05 (current average discount for Computer Systems) and Column D will have $1.

Question 121: In our research, we have found significant difficulty in procuring a Color Large-Format Plotter with the following specification: a. EPEAT Standard (for all proposed mandatory products, where applicable) Comment: EPEAT has not listed Plotters (as products) as regulated, REQUEST: Please provide SEWP concurrence that plotters (as products) are not EPEAT applicable c. Fast Ethernet (10/100Mbps) and FireWire (IEEE-1394a) connectivity Comment: It is rare to find a FireWire interface in a printer since Ethernet speeds have become so fast (recent development). Historically, a firewire was typically only found when a scanner was connected to the plotter, so scanned data gets to the plotter faster. With the faster Ethernet speeds readily available, the need for the firewire has become obsolete. RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider the option of eliminating the FireWire requirement.

Answer: If a technology is not yet covered by EPEAT,by definition in the RFP it is not required to be EPEAT compliant. The Government will make firewire a desirable feature.

Question 122: In our research, we have found significant difficulty in procuring the subject Ergonomic Trackball, and have found just one product to meet these standards Comment: There seems to be limited competition with these specifications, as if endorsing one product? RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider the option of broadening the specification to include more products.

Answer: The Government will consider revising the requirement but would be better able to do so if Industry provided specific recommendations.

Question 123: In our research, we have found significant difficulty in procuring a compliant Ergonomic Mouse Device due to the following specifications: c. Programmable feature for left or right hand users Comment: An Ergonomic Mouse is usually molded specifically for the left hand or the right hand, and the standard does not offer such a feature d. Windows and Macintosh versions Comment: Thus far we can find an Ergonomic Mouse for Windows, and an Ergonomic Mouse for Macintosh, but we have not

been able to find an Ergonomic Mouse that is compatible with both systems, or interchangeable. RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider the option of eliminating requirements c and d.

Answer: The Government will consider revising the requirement to be desirable.

Question 124: In our research, we have found significant difficulty in procuring a compliant Ergonomic Keyboards due to the following specifications: c. Integrated trackball and mouse buttons (alternate integrated tracking devices such as touchpad or joystick are acceptable) Comment: We have been able to find only one Ergonomic Keyboard with an integrated trackball, and are finding that the standard is quickly moving toward touch pads f. PC and (f1)MAC version (desirable) Comment: Thus far we can find an Ergonomic Keyboard for Windows, and an Ergonomic Keyboard for Macintosh, but we have not been able to find an Ergonomic Keyboard that is compatible with both systems, or interchangeable. RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider the option of eliminating requirements c and f


Question 125: In our research, we have found significant difficulty in procuring a compliant Whiteboard due to the following specification: g. Mobile floor stand Comment: We have been able to find only one Whiteboard that meets specifications a through f, however the optional floor stand has been discontinued, and is no longer available. RECOMMENTATION: SEWP may consider the option of eliminating this requirement.


prod.nais.nasa.gov · web viewpc and (f1)mac version (desirable) comment: thus far we can find an...

Documents