Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF MARCH 01, 2015 FBO #4845
DOCUMENT

D -- NDCP Region 4 DPC Hosting Services - Attachment

Notice Date

2/27/2015
 

Notice Type

Attachment
 

NAICS

541513 — Computer Facilities Management Services
 

Contracting Office

Department of Veterans Affairs;Technology Acquisition Center;23 Christopher Way;Eatontown NJ 07724
 

ZIP Code

07724
 

Solicitation Number

VA11815R0073
 

Response Due

3/6/2015
 

Archive Date

6/13/2015
 

Point of Contact

Den-el Opuszynski, Contract Specialist
 

E-Mail Address

arrell,
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business
 

Description

1.Question: Reference 4.2: Given that this is a virtualized cloud environment it seems overly restricted to require the datacenter be located within 100 miles from Brooklyn NY. Will you change the distance to 250 miles? Answer: In accordance (IAW) with Performance Work Statement (PWS) section 4.2, Place of Performance, "Datacenter hosting service location(s) shall be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. The Office of Information and Technology Region 4 utilizes two datacenter environments as primary and backup datacenters to one another, allowing data replication for Region 4 Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture and Microsoft Exchange in the event of a disaster. This action is in direct support of Federal Executive Branch of Continuity of Operations requirements for continuous performance of essential functions and operations in the event of an emergency. The datacenters operate communications systems at the hosted datacenter space, providing the primary method of communications for over 100,000 personnel. The datacenters also operate mission-critical medical health records systems. These systems are essential to allowing healthcare practitioners to provide medical care at VAMCs, pharmacies, clinics, and living facilities for the entire northeastern quadrant of the country. In the event information technology (IT) systems stop working, the necessary medical care cannot be provided and poses risks to our nation's Veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system owners responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the IT equipment and systems located at the datacenter are physically located at the Brooklyn facility and are responsible for the operation of that facility as well as a secondary datacenter hosting location. VA does not have the staffing or resources to provide the services in-house at both facilities concurrently. In addition, the primary consideration is to be able to continue critical operations. The staff at the Brooklyn facility currently work at the hosting location on average of one to two times each month to conduct routine systems administration functions, including but not limited to, equipment installation, equipment decommissioning, hard drive replacements, and ensuring that the systems are operating properly (equipment resets, system restorations, clearing hardware errors, troubleshooting network issues, and similar work typically known as "break/fix". These events are not able to be planned in advance and are accomplished when the need arises in order to ensure the IT systems are functional to serve our nation's Veterans. "Break/fix" work is estimated to occur once every other month. "Break/fix" efforts require qualified personnel with physical access and mandatory, required IT security clearance to access the equipment, and the system owners are the only staff with these specific skills and system knowledge able to conduct these efforts. Generally, "break/fix" efforts are for relatively minor issues, but also include contingency efforts for catastrophic equipment and system failures. In the event "break/fix" efforts are delayed, the IT equipment and systems are unable to perform their business functions, which can have critical negative effects on the ability of VA to provide critical services, including healthcare services. IAW Performance Work Statement section 4.2, Place of Performance, "Datacenter hosting service location(s) shall be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn VA Medical Center at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209 to ensure that the technical staff - who physically work at the Brooklyn facility - are able to access the hosting center to resolve system issues and restore critical functions during contingency events. Contingency events may disallow the use of other methods of travel or impede travel. Federal Preparedness Circular 65 (Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP) requires VA to have a continuity of operations plan that ensures that continuous, uninterrupted operations to our mission-critical functions - both those supporting the Agency's internal operations as well as ensuring that the supported medical and benefits facilities can provide care and services to Veterans. 2.Question: Reference 4.2: If this requirement and the rationale is commuting distance as stated 4.2 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE "The physical distance limitation supports technical requirements for limiting commuting-distance services for supported systems and applications", 100 miles is outside the definition for "local commuting area" as described in the Federal Travel Regulation. The proper distance for the local commuting area should be probably 50 miles for the New York City area. Will you change this restriction? Answer: IAW PWS section 4.2, Place of Performance, "Datacenter hosting service location(s) shall be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn VA Medical Center at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. The physical distance limitation supports technical requirements for limiting commuting-distance services for supported systems and applications." The Government expanded the distance to 100 miles in order to promote competition. 3.Question: Would the Government consider an Offeror that has an office within the 100 statute miles as required IAW PWS section 4.2, Place of Performance but the hosting facility outside of the 100 statute miles? Answer: No. See response to Question 1. 4.Question: This is 100% set aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) - are you looking for this company to be the data center provider? Answer: The solicitation is a 100% set aside for SDVOSBs IAW VA Acquisition Regulation 852.219-10 VA NOTICE OF TOTAL SERVICE-DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE (DEC 2009). 5.Question: The requirement states the data center needs to be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn VA Medical Center at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. If the infrastructure as a service (IaaS) option is elected, you also require the FedRamp certified IaaS environment to be in that same data center. Are you open to Data Centers in other locations if they meet the necessary requirements, compliance, etc.? Answer: No. As this is a transitional and transformational effort, moving from Government-provided equipment to vendor-provided IaaS, and we anticipate heavy involvement from Government staff from the Brooklyn location during the migration from physical to virtual/IaaS, the requirement to provide the hosting within 100 statute miles remains for the IaaS option in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Future follow-on efforts, once IaaS transitions have been successfully completed, should be able to be executed with fewer geographic restrictions. 6.Question: Is this colocation only? Answer: The Government would entertain a dedicated hosting space proposal as well. We do not require that other hosting tenants be located with the Government-provided equipment and systems noted in the RFP. 7.Question: Is raised floor a requirement? Answer: Raised floor is not a requirement. Using raised access flooring and an underfloor plenum for environmental cooling, power, and/or datacomm distribution is a feasible alternative in some locations but these systems can be supported in other manners. Slab floor datacenters can also meet the requirements of the procurement. 8.Question: On the Request for Information (RFI) the response date was to be 31 March 2015. The new response date is much shorter. The solicitation was also released later than originally noted, 31 Jan 2015 vs 3 Feb 2015. Is it feasible to extend the response date given the level of effort for the response? Answer: Proposal submission deadline has been extended until Friday, March 6, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. EST. The SF1449 has also been corrected to reflect the new proposal due date. 9.Question: In regards to hosting services for VA solicitation number: VA118-15-R-0073, we are hoping to arrange a pre-bid meeting/ walk-through of the facility. Answer: Site visits will not be arranged at this time. 10.Question: Does this solution have to be in Philadelphia? Would you consider a datacenter in Pennsylvania. Answer: IAW Performance Work Statement section 4.2, Place of Performance, "Datacenter hosting service location(s) shall be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn VA Medical Center at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. 11.Question: Regarding Section VOLUME I - TECHNICAL FACTOR, High-Level Facility Compliance, VA requests contractors address compliance with the 12 high-level requirements for the proposed datacenter facility/facilities IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.2, however there does not appear to be 12 requirements identified. Please clarify which 12 requirements our team should address to meet the requirements. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The 12 High Level Requirements are located in Appendix D. 12.Question: Would VA consider modifying their pricing spreadsheet to be more in line with Industry offerings? This would provide VA with more flexibility as well as a better price. The existing spreadsheet seems to confuse a pricing model in order to compare vendors with a quote. By providing the structure for the quote VA has inadvertently dictated the service model to vendors. This forces vendors to modify their offerings to meet the pricing model which introduces risk and therefore increases costs. In addition there are several inconsistencies between the Pricing Spreadsheet and the PWS. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government has reviewed your request and has determined that changes to the pricing spreadsheet as per your request are not warranted. Accordingly, there are no changes to the RFP in response to this question The Government has corrected the inconsistencies between the Pricing Spreadsheet and the PWS.. Potential Offerors who believe that any inconsistency exists should provide specific description/detail of such inconsistency. 13.Question: Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0002 is shown as Section 5.2 Datacenter Hosting Services (FFP). Section 5.2 in the PWS is Datacenter hosting Support Services. If this is truly the CLIN for support, even though subsections of 5.2 have more than just support in them, then why is it firm-fixed price (FFP)? Shouldn't it be time and materials (T&M)? Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government has determined a FFP contract imposes the least amount of risk to the Government. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 14.Question: If CLIN 0002 is truly meant to be the CLIN to provide support services, then a T&M labor rate might be more appropriate. There are several types of labor, and the ability to provide several CLINs by Labor Category as specified in PWS Section 5.2, would provide a better value to VA. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government has reviewed your request and has determined that changes to the CLIN as per your request are not warranted. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. The CLIN remains FFP. 15.Question: CLIN 0003 is shown as Section 5.3 System Availability (T&M). Section 5.3 in the PWS is Datacenter Electrical Services. Assuming that this is the CLIN for space and power, we recommend that this CLIN be an FFP MRC CLIN. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The pricing spreadsheet has been revised to reference the correct RFP sections. 16.Question: Rather than having a single CLIN to define the space and power requirements it would be much for advantageous to allow Vendors to provide multiple CLINS. Industry standard is to have line item pricing for models which price on space and power. This can be rolled up to show equivalent comparisons between vendors but the line item basis allows for discrete increases and decreases of services based on current VA usage. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government has reviewed your request and has determined that changes to the CLIN as per your request are not warranted. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 17.Question: The PWS states that VA wants an initial 5,500 square feet of space for 157 cabinets at 35 square feet per cabinet. The VA has also provided a table on Page 47 of the PWS which shows the kind of power that VA is using. This is more in line with what the industry would use to price a solution. If VA put these specific items into the pricing spreadsheet it would lead to a more apples to apples comparison and better pricing. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: PWS Section 3.0 Scope of Work states, "Based on the current equipment to be supported, the initial physical space must accommodate 157 racks of equipment. Each rack of equipment requires approximately 35 square feet of operating/maintenance space." This provides the Government the flexibility to conduct any operating/maintenance. In addition, the Government requires the Datacenter Electrical Services as stated in PWS Section 5.3. The pricing spreadsheet enables the Offerors to propose a solution that meets both of these requirements. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 18.Question: The PWS also keeps everything in terms of kilowatts (kW). Somehow, that changes to kilowatts per hour (kWh) in the pricing spreadsheet. We recommend that VA stay with the kW model, and that it be included in the pricing spreadsheet. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The RFP, Section B.3 Price Schedule denotes kWh. The paragraphs within the Section B.4 Performance Work Statement denote kWh. The pricing spreadsheet requests pricing per kWh. 19.Question: There are no CLINS for non-recurring charges. Please provide CLINs for non-recurring non-labor prices. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government does not identify any non-recurring, non-labor items where CLINs have not been established. The existing CLIN structure covers all of the work items in the PWS. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 20.Question: By allowing for line item pricing it would also allow VA to get rid of the optional CLINS. Since each line item is already priced, VA could order as few or as many as they want. To get the best price we would recommend that VA does include some minimum quantities, so that volume discounts could be applied. Reference the options CLINs, Sections 5.7 and 5.9 of the PWS. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The Government has reviewed your request and has decided not to make any changes regarding your request. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 21.Question: We also recommend separating out the power distribution unit (PDU) from the power in Section 5.9 E7. This would allow VA to buy the power and use any PDU they want and not be limited to a specific make and model. Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answer to this question. Answer: The three-phase Modular Power Distribution Unit (MPDU) is a piece of equipment necessary to distribute the electricity from the power circuits ("whips") ordered to the supported IT equipment. The referenced section does not discuss the provision of 'power.' It is for equipment that the vendor may be required to install to allow electricity to go from the facility distribution equipment to the Government IT equipment. The MPDU requirements noted in the PWS provide minimum technical requirements and do not constrain the Government to a specific make or model. Vendors are encouraged to propose costs for any make/model of equipment that meets or exceeds the minimum technical requirements. There are no changes to the RFP in response to this question. 22.Question: We would suggest providing a pricing spreadsheet that looks more along the lines of something like the attached (See attached spreadsheet). Please amend the RFP to reflect any changes as a result of the answers to these questions. Answer: No changes have been made to the RFP or the Pricing Spreadsheet based upon this request. 23.Question: On Page 103, the State where insurance is required is left blank. Should the proposal include applicable insurance where the data center is located? Answer: The state in which the datacenter is located will be the state listed in C.10 VAAR 852.237.70 Contractor Responsibilities (Apr 1984) upon contract award. 24.Question: Solicitation, page 50 states, "End-to-end insurance covering the replacement value of any IT equipment (for each migration activity) shall be included. Our insurance carrier is requesting the approximate value of the GFE - can you provide? Answer: The Government estimates the original purchase price for the GFE on all systems to have been $20 million and the replacement price to be $10 million. 25.Question: The summary page of the spreadsheet in the solicitation is missing 0006 and 0006AH and 0006AJ. How would you like us to proceed to incorporate the financial data covering those line items? Answer: Please see attached revised, pricing spreadsheet. 26.Question: Page 64 of the solicitation details of the existing configurations of the IT equipment, systems, and applications to be hosted at the Contractor facility/facilities. What is the speed of the MetroE network? Answer: For proposal purposes, the MetroE links operate at 400Mbps. 27.Question: The section below states that Vendor will provide the Ethernet (100 Meg). Is this a dedicated link between facilities or does this mean Internet? Answer: This is an internet (non-secure, non-dedicated, 100Mbps) connection. 28.Question: The section below states that VA will provide the OC12 and the Metro E but yet the pricing section asks for a network quote on these connections, will VA provide or is there an option? Answer: VA maintains flexibility and reduces future operational risk by asking for pricing for the networks to be provided by the vendor if necessary. Currently the VA obtains the OC12 and MetroE connections independently from the datacenter hosting services contract. 29.Question: Will the VA provide all network equipment to connect to the carriers network i.e. Switches, firewalls, routers, Load Balancers? We want to ensure we do not have to carry within our proposal is the government is already providing. Answer: The VA provides and manages its own switches, firewalls, routers, appliances, et cetera in order to maintain and validate its security profile. There is no intervening management access to that traffic by a third party (including the vendor). VA will own/operate all GFE hardware downstream of the carrier demarc. 30.Question: The Contractor will provide cross-connects between the Carrier "D" mar and the VA network cabinet, is this correct? Answer: Yes. Assume that the general condition is a WAN demarc in the vendor's facility, which is located separately from the hosting space(s) dedicated to VA IT equipment. The vendor is responsible for the cross-connects from the demarc to VA's core network switches in the hosting space. Note that there will be redundant WAN connections with separate demarcs, generally from separate carriers. 31.Question: What is the specific technical reason for the 100-mile maximum distance between sites? Answer: See response to Question 1. 32.Question: Does the ability to lessen the VA's current exposure to a single weather-related event (e.g. Super-storm Sandy) help justify locations located outside of the 100 mile radius? Answer: No. See response to Question 1. 33.Question: Regarding Section E.11 Proposal Submission, section (i) Volume I Technical Volume, item (8), would VA accept waived labor category rates vs zero dollar value? For example, if Janitorial services are included in base rate, does the VA require those services broken out as separate labor categories? Answer: Yes, but the Offeror should indicate the waived labor category in assumptions. 34.Question: Would VA provide a Manufacturer and Model number of the Racks? Answer: The IT equipment racks currently holding Government-furnished IT equipment are of various makes and manufactures. No inventory data providing make/model information is available. In general, the racks are 42U. 35.Question: Regarding the table provided in PWS Section 5.8, please identify the type of circuits to be used and their origin? Answer: The table in section 5.8 clearly describes the type of circuits (OC-12, Metro E, etc) and the speeds of each that the Government is requesting pricing for (installation and monthly service). The origin of the circuits is presumably through the telecom provider(s) that the vendor would contract with to provide the service. 36.Question: Does VA require the contractor to provide the MPU physical unit or the power that plugs into it. If so, what power and type? (Reference PWS 5.9, Power Circuit Support Requirements) Answer: In section 5.9, the Government is describing (a) power circuits that may be ordered as well as (b) a specific type of Modular Power Distribution Unit (MPDU, aka "power strip") that may be ordered to accompany the power circuit(s). The Government might, for example, order 1ea E4 and 2ea E7 at some point. In such a case, the vendor would provide dual L630 receptacles on "whips" to a specific, designated IT equipment location, and two each 3-phase MPDUs meeting the minimum technical requirements. We understand that the aforementioned scenario would not work (3-phase MPDUs on 2-pole, single-phase power whips). The scenario was included only to describe how the section and its associated CLINs are intended to work. 37.Question: Section E.11, (iii) Volume III-Price Factor states, "The Offeror shall provide the current cost of electricity the Offeror pays to the electrical utility as provided in Attachment A, Pricing Spreadsheet IAW PWS 5.3." Can the pricing for electricity be bundled? Answer: No. The pricing for the Datacenter Electrical Services shall be in accordance with PWS Section and B.3 Price Schedule. 38.Question: Please provide additional information and details around the applications anticipated for migration from the data center. Please include Application, application platform, number of users, and whether it will require a physical move of hardware. Answer: This information will not be released in a solicitation environment due to sensitivity of the systems operating and information contained on those systems. In general, this information will be made available to the successful offeror to the level necessary to develop a transition and migration plan for each application migration group. Any transition and migration to a new vendor operating environment would necessitate the physical move of Government-furnished equipment (IT hardware). 39.Question: Please provide the number of users accessing the applications in order to accurately determine bandwidth calculations and sizing. Answer: Vendors are not being asked to propose which WAN circuit types and numbers of such are to be provided. See section 5.2.2.3. 40.Question: Based on the B tables, Transition/Migration is only built in as a 12-month Option Task for the Base Year; how would VA prefer the remaining 6 months of migration/transition activities as defined in the PWS 5.5 be priced? Answer: The "Section B Pricing Sheet" worksheet in the pricing spreadsheet calls out a quantity of 18 (months) of transition and migration service. In the "Summary" worksheet, propose the product of the 18 requested quantity and the price per entered in the "Section B Pricing Sheet." The Government will continue to pay for the (up to) six months of these services in the first option period, if required. 41.Question: Regarding Travel, there are no Travel/ODC line items in Attachment A. Should estimated travel costs (with the exception of the local commuting area) be provided as a separate line item? Answer: IAW section 4.3 Travel, the Government does not anticipate travel to be required as part of this effort. Contractor travel within the local commuting area in order to provide required services shall be priced as part of the appropriate requirement contract line item number (CLIN). 42.Question: I'm reviewing the Data Center Hosting Support Services RFP and was wondering if there is a specific city identified for the hosting services in Region 4 or would any major city be acceptable? Does the VA have a preference?-I noticed that at least one application/system needs to be moved to a Government facility in Philadelphia-would the VA prefer hosting all services in Philadelphia? Answer: IAW Performance Work Statement section 4.2, Place of Performance, "Datacenter hosting service location(s) shall be within 100 statute miles of the Brooklyn VA Medical Center at 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. 43.Question: Will the pace/timetable for cloud migration be sped up if the need for physical migration is eliminated? Answer: No. The Government IT systems are not ready to be virtualized at this time. 44.Question: In this section the RFP identifies "One identified system/application shall be relocated to another Government facility in the Philadelphia area under the Contractor-provided migration and transition services." What system/application is the VA moving? When will the move take place? Will the team responsible for the move also be responsible for the set up? How much equipment will be involved in the move? Who will do the physical move of the system/application? Answer: See additional information relating to this requirement under the headings "Application Group B" and "Application Group C" in section 6.6. This migration and transition, if required, will be the responsibility of the successful offeror. The move will be scheduled during the transition and migration phase jointly by the vendor and the Government to support all requirements of the specific move (for the application, for the losing and receiving sites, et cetera). The vendor's responsibilities in transition and migration services are to provide end-to-end services such that the business functionality provided by the IT equipment and systems are minimally impacted. 45.Question: The RFP states: Provide a clear description of the management methodology that will be used for executing the contract, to include an integrated schedule indicating start and completion dates for all critical project tasks (including but not limited to tenant improvements and service transition and migration). This description shall include staffing approach addressing estimated level of effort (LOE) for each task to include labor categories and associated hours, security access control and security accreditation considerations, how managed technical services (PWS section 4.4) and hosted IT system availability monitoring (PWS section 4.3) will be provided, a comparison of janitorial/custodial services proposed versus the best practice summary in PWS Appendix A, and how quality control/assurance for these services will be managed. The referenced sections 4.4 and 4.3 do not match what is stated above. Can you please provide clarification? Answer: The references in this section have been revised. Please see attached, revised RFP with track changes. 46.The following recommendations/questions regarding solicitation VA118-15-R-0073 for NDCP Region 4 DPC Hosting Services, which we believe warrants a serious second review particularly with respect to the recommendation in question 1 below in order to minimize cost and security vulnerabilities associated with NCDP requirements through use of an existing Trusted Internet Connection facility. In addition, we believe that questions below also need to be clarified to ensure all offerors are costing against a common baseline (to allow an apples to apples comparison of data center hosting rates). We respectfully request consideration of the following questions as well as a one-week extension to address any changed requirements/clarifications: 47a. Question: The Trusted Internet Connection initiative (TIC) under the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-08-05 translated into VA policy guidance under VA Directive 6513, was meant to facilitate reduction/optimize individual external connections, including internet points of presence, improve incident response capabilities through centralized gateway monitoring with less access points allowing for easier monitoring and identification of malicious traffic. The VA Directive 6513 policy indicated that the VA would transition all external connections to the One-VA Internet Gateway when and where possible and that the VA would comply with critical OMB Trusted Internet Connection technical capabilities to ensure the continuance, reduction and consolidation of external connections. Given the current contract is being re-competed with a need to provide data center hosting support services to replace the support provided at the incumbent services data center in Philadelphia, we believe that VA would benefit by choosing instead to migrate to an existing TIC facility to comply with the intent of the OMB guidance; to consolidate connections/access points; to significantly reduce costs and risks associated with the Network Operations Center connectivity, WAN connectivity, VA routers, ATO timelines/cost, efforts associated with rebuilding servers; and for the ability to allow forthe utilization of native solutions and security processes, which will significantly reduce security risk by migrating to a facility which has already implemented IAW TIC guidance. Based on this, we recommend making a change to the requirement for locations. Answer: The Government has reviewed the request. However, the aforementioned suggestion does not meet current VA technical requirements for the IT equipment and systems being supported. "When and where possible" has not been achieved at the current time for systems that would be impacted under this procurement. 47b. Question: Is the Vendor required to provide outside circuits or only internal connectivity from the demark? Is the Government looking for a Business Partner Extranet solution? Answer: See section 5.2.2.3. In the current configuration, the vendor shall provide internal connectivity from the WAN demarcs to VA IT equipment (core switches) and one, 100Mb internet connection to a specific application group. The future configuration may change requiring the vendor to also provide the WAN connectivity (see section 5.9). The Government is not looking for a Business Partner Extranet solution. 47.Question: Please confirm that the Government requires 5,500 square feet to support its 157 racks. This appears to be an unusually low density. The Government would realize a much lower cost if it utilized a more typical density of 22 square feet per rack which would require only 3,500 square feet and allow a minimum of 525kw. Answer: PWS Section 3.0 Scope of Work states, "Based on the current equipment to be supported, the initial physical space must accommodate 157 racks of equipment. Each rack of equipment requires approximately 35 square feet of operating/maintenance space." This provides the Government the flexibility to conduct any operating/maintenance. In addition, the Government requires the Datacenter Electrical Services as stated in PWS Section 5.3. 48.Question: Paragraph 5.3 Datacenter Electrical Services indicates that the total estimated kw requirement to operate the installed equipment is 322kw. In addition, that paragraph indicates that "The Contractor shall reserve an initial minimum of 800kw of technical electrical capacity for IT equipment use with a 6% growth factor for each year of the contract (first year 800kw, second year 848 kw, and so on)." What assumption should the contractor make in identifying costs for power necessary to operate the datacenter given the costs for power must be built into the general rate for the datacenter hosting service? Should the contractor assume the cost for power is based on the 322kw necessary to operate the installed equipment or should we assume the full utilization of the 800kw of capacity will be consumed as well as factoring in the 6% growth rate per year. We believe that a common set of costing assumptions needs to be provided to all offerors to ensure an apples to apples comparison of hosting service rates. Answer: Estimated kW requirements leading to the 322kW estimate of current usage are based on 35% of maximum circuit load (e.g., 35% of 24A for a 30A circuit). The total power being consumed in the existing installation is not metered and can only be estimated; requesting 640kW of usable power (80% of an 800kW set-aside, based on ultimate capacities) provides a factor of safety for both under-estimating the power required by the existing load and an ability to grow within a boundary, which is increased in each option period. The vendor will be reimbursed on a T&M basis for the actual energy consumption. Given the pass-through nature of the electricity utilization CLIN (CLIN x003, T&M portion), no significant assumptions should be required on the vendor's part in order to comply with this requirement.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/4b6a7c13b38e1c08e612c07f2ba989b1)
 

Document(s)

Attachment
 

File Name: VA118-15-R-0073 VA118-15-R-0073_5.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890206&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-014.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890206&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-014.docx

 

File Name: VA118-15-R-0073 Questions and Answers Final 2.27.15 02.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890207&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-015.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890207&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-015.docx

 

File Name: VA118-15-R-0073 VA118-15-R-0073 Final to Post after Questions 2.23.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890208&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-016.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890208&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-016.docx

 

File Name: VA118-15-R-0073 Attachment A Pricing Spreadsheet_022315.xlsx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890209&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-017.xlsx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1890209&FileName=VA118-15-R-0073-017.xlsx

 

Note: If links are broken, refer to Point of Contact above or contact the FBO Help Desk at 877-472-3779.
 

Record

SN03654330-W 20150301/150227235743-4b6a7c13b38e1c08e612c07f2ba989b1 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |