TO: All Potential Vendors
FROM: Rebekah O’Hara, RFP Coordinator
Subject: Consulting Services to Develop an Implementation Plan for the Movement of DIS Services- RFP Number A10-RFP-020
The following DIS Answers to Vendors’ Preliminary Questions are issued as Amendment Number 1 to the Request for Proposal Number A10-RFP-020.
Questions and comments have been stated exactly as they were received. The answers may only explain or clarify some aspect that is already addressed in the RFP. Some of the answers may also supplement or change what was previously stated in the RFP or in an exhibit.
The following Q&A is an amendment to the RFP/Contract documents. It is important that Vendors review all amendments and address the new issues/requirements in your Response.
Vendor Questions and Official Answers #1
1) QUESTION: Is State of WA anticipating virtualizing in place, and then moving the virtual infrastructure to the new data center? This process is far more cost effective and less risky than a physical data center move.
ANSWER: DIS is taking a holistic approach to virtualization. DIS staff is familiar with virtual server technologies and has had VMware operational for several years. Work is underway to convert as many servers under its control to virtual servers in advance of the move. Currently about 30% of these servers are virtual. In the “A La Carte” co-location service, customers are currently free to adopt virtualization. DIS does not know what percentage of these servers are virtual but many customers are moving to virtual servers.
DIS is currently assessing the physical servers under its control for virtual server conversion candidates. It is intended to convert the best candidates first and then move on to the more marginal candidates. DIS is not adopting a 100% virtual server strategy but is following a practice of considering virtual servers first for new applications and for server replacements. It is anticipated that 25% will remain physical but this is subject to change. The following servers are not being considered as virtual server candidates: Exchange servers, servers that have certain hardware requirements that cannot be supported on a virtual server, and servers with applications that are not supported by the vendor on virtual servers. Virtual server policies and goals vary among the agencies using the “A La Carte” co-location services.
2) QUESTION: With today’s technology, there are very few servers that will not run as fast, or faster, as virtual machines. Most organizations can now virtualize over 99% of their data centers, leading to much greater efficiencies from utilizing a virtual infrastructure as the common architecture for all data center functions: servers, storage, network, development, security, management, disaster recovery and desktops. Does State of Washington anticipate virtualizing 100% of the data center? If not, what percentage is anticipated to remain physical, and why?
ANSWER: See answer to Question #1.
3) QUESTION: Is State of WA wishing to implement an automated chargeback model to help ensure efficient resource allocation among the 600 agencies and, if so, is a potential solution desired to be specified as part of the RFP response?
ANSWER: DIS operates on a chargeback model today and will continue to do so. A potential solution is not part of the RFP response per se. The successful vendor will review and verify DIS requirements for utilization metrics and ensure that this is reflected in the Deliverables produced.
4) QUESTION: Although State of WA has clearly made the decision to virtualize, we find that performing a high-level ROI analysis enables a big-picture perspective that leads to optimum resource allocation. Has an ROI analysis been created? If not, is one desired?
ANSWER: This contract will not address ROI for other virtualization projects. Those separate projects will do so. See the ISB Guideline at http://isb.wa.gov/policies/202g.doc for a discussion of Cost Benefit Analysis that is in scope for the Implementation Plan.
5) QUESTION: New compute platforms exist that are specifically designed to enhance virtual infrastructure, along with specific tools for management, security and monitoring. Is State of WA open to utilizing these new technologies and, if so, are potential solutions desired to be specified as part of the RFP response?
ANSWER: Yes the State of Washington is using and is open to utilizing these new technologies. DIS expects that the successful vendor will shape the requirements, architecture and plans as they relate to these tools. Specific solutions are not part of the response except that a vendor may articulate its experience and skill with how it has used and implemented such tools successfully elsewhere.
6) QUESTION: Is State of WA staff familiar with virtualization technology? Are any certified employees on staff? Will the internal IT staff assist with the P2V process of servers?
ANSWER: See answer to Question #1 for the first two questions. For the last question, internal IT staff will assist with and be responsible for the P2V process.
7) QUESTION: We find that a much more effective and cost-effective disaster recovery solution can be implemented when it is architected as a component of an overall virtualized data center. Is disaster recovery a desired initiative? If so, is an automated virtual DR platform desired to be specified as part of the RFP response?
ANSWER: An automated DR platform is not desired by DIS as part of the RFP response. DIS is addressing DR outside of the scope of this RFP.
8) QUESTION: We find that virtualized desktops not only help effective facilitate disaster recovery solution, but they can lead to a significantly lower cost structure while enhancing both security and user productivity. A VDI solution, however, is most effective when designed as a component of an overall virtualized data center. Is a VDI initiative desired and, if so, desired to be specified as part of the RFP response?
ANSWER: A VDI initiative is not desired as part of the RFP response. DIS is addressing VDI outside of the scope of this RFP.
9) QUESTION: How many applications are included in the move by size (small, medium and large)?
ANSWER: DIS provides the infrastructure for customers to run their applications, but does not own the applications. Therefore, DIS does not keep an inventory of customer applications running on the infrastructure. Governmental IT, though, must provide an annual report to the Information Services Board containing information on their IT portfolio. Part of the information consists of a list of applications and this information is stored in a Clarity database. Clarity reports that there are more than 2,200 applications running within the State, but not all of these run at OB2. We estimate the number of applications to be around 1,000 and all of varying sizes. Vendors should propose the level and method of discovery that they will require to develop the deliverables as defined in the RFP.
10) QUESTION: Are there DR plans for all the applications and have they been tested recently?
ANSWER: DIS maintains DR plans and recoverability responsibility for those things it manages. Agencies run and maintain applications and are responsible for their DR planning, recovery and testing. The DIS tape backup and recovery service is recovered and tested periodically.
11) QUESTION: Is there current inventory of all the equipment in the OB2 data center? Is there a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) for the equipments?
ANSWER: Inventory exists in several different repositories. There is a CMDB that has most Configuration Item (CI) data, however there are several CI types are presently excluded from the CMDB. This CMDB is not designed to provide the level of detail needed for a move. DIS expects the successful vendor will provide best practices methods with regards to configuration management.
12) QUESTION: Are there up-to-date OB2 network and facility schematics?
ANSWER: Network schematics exist in various forms. Facility schematics exist wiring diagrams are not complete. DIS expects the successful vendor to propose risk mitigations for the existing OB2 facility.
13) QUESTION: Is there any EMC data replication taking place today?
ANSWER: Yes.
14) QUESTION: Is it the intent that the migration of existing DIS services from OB2 to SDC includes technology modernization, such as virtualization of physical servers? Or is the intent to migrate from OB2 technology to equivalent technology within SDC with modernization to follow? Alternatively, is the State of Washington asking the Implementation Plan Development Vendor to assist in making that decision?
ANSWER: DIS is asking that the Implementation Plan RFP successful vendor to assist with making these decisions so that an optimal transition can take place.
15) QUESTION: Is it correct that the dates for “Implementation Plan Work End” and “Systems Integration Contract Start” are May-10 and Jun-10?
ANSWER: These dates are correct but should be understood as tentative dates that are yet to be informed by this RFP’s successful vendor’s proposed approach.
16) QUESTION: "The URL for the referenced policy returns a 404 – Not Found error (http://isb.wa.gov/policies/portfolio/202G.doc). Is it correct that the policies referenced in 1.3 and 5.1.g.7 are the ones listed on the ISB website at http://isb.wa.gov/policies /?
The Section 1.3 reference for
202-G1 Feasibility Study Guidelines
And the 5.1.g.7 reference for
400-P1 IT Security Policy
401-S1 IT Security Standards
402-G1 IT Security Guidelines
403-R1 IT and Internet Security Program Charter”
ANSWER: Yes, this is correct. DIS recently published changes to the website.
17) QUESTION: Question 1.5 Project Order of Magnitude Information 3 What is the number of network security zones or VLAN’s currently configured in the OB2 Data Center?
ANSWER: There are 600 VLAN’s.
18) QUESTION: "Section 1.9 states that the contract shall ""continue for approximately four months"". Section 1.11 says that the budget is ""based upon an engagement duration of approximately three months"". Will the State please advise the correct period of performance, prior to the exercise of any extensions, envisioned?"
ANSWER: DIS desires for the Implementation Plan to be executed in three months but is expecting the bidding vendors to review the scope of work and propose a schedule that is reasonable based upon their experience. If the project could be completed in three months then a total contract duration of four months would be sufficient. DIS is very interested in what if any discovery methods and tools must be used to gather the data needed to create the Implementation Plan and how this would impact the schedule. The correct period of performance will be informed by the successful vendor’s proposed approach and it will be written into the SOW. The SOW period of performance would not represent an extension. DIS will exercise extensions for optional work at its discretion.
19) QUESTION: It makes good sense that a successful bidder on this RFP would not be eligible to participate in a System Integration opportunity, as the effort here substantially determines the follow-on SOW. However, the same cannot be said for QA/IVV whose scope of work is driven by DIS and other state standards and is independent of any implementation planning called for in this RFP. The scope the current effort does not include estimates, approach, alternatives or budget related to QA/IVV. The work on the current planning does not influence the scope of QA/IV&V required, only the scope of the task they will be monitoring. The successful bidder on this Implementation Planning effort would have no conflicting advantage gained by performing this contract, unless the state exercises its option to extend this contract to cover the period of performance of the QA/IV&V contract. Would the state consider removing QA/IV&V from the list of precluded subsequent awards, perhaps qualified to apply only if the contracts coincide?
ANSWER: No, Section 1.10 of the RFP states the current requirement.
20) QUESTION: The last sentence states that the Vendor must include a description of its experience and history with child care facility consulting. As this seems unrelated to services requested, is this correct? What is the correct text for this section?
ANSWER: This is a typo. Section 4.2 is revised to read as follows:
Vendor must provide a brief description of its entity (including business locations, size, areas of specialization and expertise, client base and any other pertinent information that would aid an evaluator in formulating a determination about the stability and strength of the entity), including the Vendor organization’s experience and history with data center consulting.
21) QUESTION: Are there sales taxes that apply to this procurement and if so, what is the current percentage of sales? Do the taxes apply to services, to hardware, to software?
ANSWER: Consulting services are not taxed. If vendors are proposing hardware and software, pricing should include taxes of 8.5%.
22) QUESTION: 5.1.a. Minimum Requirements 15-16 Part a - Is the intent that the proposed key members of the project team should together have experience with five separate engagements, or that each of the key project team members should individually have five separate engagements listed in each resume?
ANSWER: Respond with your company’s experience and individual resource experience. Experience gained as a team will be scored higher than the experiences of individuals all other things being equal.
23) QUESTION: 5.1.g.7 Security 15-16 Are the referenced ISB security policies and standards available in a bidder’s library?
ANSWER: No, they are not available in a bidder’s library but they are available online at http://isb.wa.gov/policies/default.aspx under the Security heading.
24) QUESTION: 5.2.3 Experience 16-17 Do all subitems a-g need to be satisfied on each of the 3 projects or is it sufficient that each item is satisfied by at least one project?
ANSWER: For section 5.2.3, all sub items a-g, need to be satisfied with three projects but the projects do not need to be the same for each sub item. If vendors do not have experience on at least three projects for a sub item, then they should respond with the experience that they do have and DIS will determine if this experience is sufficient.
25) QUESTION: Comment Appendix B (contract); section 45. Limitation of Liability 17 "The Vendor must be able to limit its financial liability, especially under such a brief term time and material contract where there is little room to provide for financial recoupment of risk.
We suggest adding 45.5
“Vendor’s entire and collective liability arising out of or relating to this Contract, regardless of the nature or form of the claim or cause of action, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise, shall in no event exceed the amounts paid to Vendor under this Contract.”"
ANSWER: Please follow the process outlined in the RFP for taking exceptions to the contract language.