RETURN BIDS TO : Shared Services Canada / Services partagés Canada C/O Andrew Nimmo (Contracting Authority) Andrew.nimmo@canada.ca 180 Kent St.,13th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1G 4A8 Title Sujet Carling Campus Wired Intra-Building Network Solicitation No. N de l invitation Amendment No. N de modif. 2015119/A 001 Client Reference No. N référence du client Date 2015119/A 2012-12-06 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DEMANDE DE PROPOSITION Proposal To: Shared Services Canada We hereby offer to sell to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out herein, referred to herein or attached hereto, the goods, services, and construction listed herein and on any attached sheets at the price(s) set out thereof. Proposition aux: Services partagés Canada Nous offrons par la présente de vendre à Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada, aux conditions énoncées ou incluses par référence dans la présente et aux annexes ci-jointes, les biens, services et construction énumérés ici sur toute feuille ci-annexées, au(x) prix indiqué(s) File No. N de dossier 019eo-2015119/A Solicitation Closes L invitation prend fin at à 02 :00 PM on le 2015-12-01 F.O.B. - F.A.B. Plant-Usine: Destination: Other-Autre: Address Inquiries to : - Adresser toutes questions à: Nimmo, Andrew Telephone No. N de téléphone : 613-668-5697 Delivery required - Livraison exigée See Herein Destination of Goods, Services, and Construction: Destination des biens, services et construction : See Herein Time Zone Fuseau horaire Eastern daylight standard time EDST Heure normale de l'est HNE Buyer Id Id de l acheteur 019eo FAX No. N de FAX Not applicable Delivered Offered Livraison proposée
Comments - Commentaires Vendor/firm Name and address Raison sociale et adresse du fournisseur/de l entrepreneur This document contains a Security Requirement Facsimile No. N de télécopieur Telephone No. N de téléphone Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of Vendor/firm (type or print)- Nom et titre de la personne autorisée à signer au nom du fournisseur/de l entrepreneur (taper ou écrire en caractères d imprimerie) Signature Date
This amendment is raised to: AMENDMENT # 001 1) Respond to the questions from bidders relating to the content of the RFP, as set out in Appendix 001; 2) Amend the Request for Proposal (RFP), as set out in Appendix 002; Question 1. Appendix 001 Pertaining to the solicitation # above in Section 3.2, (b) Substantiation of Technical Compliance Form for Alternative Solutions it indicates the Crown is allowing alternative solutions BUT.the statement under 4.2 (a) states that all must or mandatory specifications have to be met or the bidder is deemed non-compliant. These two statements are conflicting. For example, Table 4-4 states it provides the mandatory functions that are essential to build and operate the wired Intra-Building network at Carling Campus. This statement is ultimately false, they are not essential when building a Next Generation LAN. They are essential when building a traditional multi protocol complex LAN, which again conflicts with the statement of accepting alternative solutions. Please clarify. Will the Crown be accepting alternatives for the list of 98 mandatory technical specifications listed in the bid? Will the Crown be accepting a solid technical explanation of why some legacy tech specs are not necessarily needed or required in an alternative solution? Answer 1 As per section 3.2 the Crown allows compliance using alternative solutions when evidence to be submitted in support of an alternative function would otherwise suffice the same need as the technical specification through other means. Under section 4.2 it can be interpreted that all must or mandatory specifications have to be met, however the vendor is deemed to have satisfied the technical specification where they can provide evidence that the proposal will meet the provisions of the tech spec, through innovation and uniqueness rather than conventional practice. Please refer to Appendix 002.
Question 2 In table 4.4 of the RFP, SSC has listed the requirement for RFC2929 with standard name "RADIUS". RFC2929 actually refers to considerations for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) classes, Resource Record (RR) types, operation codes, error codes, etc. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2929). Seeing as this is not related to RADIUS, and best practices for DNS implementation are not a relevant requirement for this physical infrastructure RFP, we would like to request that SSC please remove this requirement. Answer 2 RFC2929 is a typographic error and should read RFC6929. Question 3 SSC lists the requirement for RFC5080 under RADIUS in table 4.4 of Annex A. RFC5080 is only used to describe describes common issues seen in RADIUS implementations and suggests some fixes. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5080) Since these are suggested fixes only, and not standardized in any formal RFC, we would request that SSC remove this requirement. Answer 3 RFC5080 should be removed as it is not a change/update to the actual standard. Question 4 Annex A, table 4.4 requests support for standard 802.1ad, Q-in-Q. In typical deployments where Q-in-Q is leveraged, it requires support across the entire campus network. SSC only asks for this requirement at the access and aggregation switches. For full interoperability, we would request that SSC add this requirement to the core switch as well. Answer 4 802.1ad/Q-in-Q should be added to Core switches for continuity. Question 5 In Annex A, table 4.4, SSC requests support for 802.1ax Link Aggregation. The standard 802.1ax is simply the transfer of the 802.3ad standard from the IEEE's 802.3 working group to the 802.1 working group, with no difference in the actual implemented standard. Therefore, would SSC please amend this requirement to list "802.1ax OR 802.3ad". Answer 5 IEEE 802.1AX standard should be followed, 802.3ad should be removed. Question 6 In table 4.4 of the RFP, SSC has listed the requirement for RFC3947 yet have not marked it as applicable to any switch position. Would SSC please update the table to reflect that this requirement applies to the Core Switch as it supports the IKE and IPSec requirements that are also indicated as required for the Core Switch. Answer 6 IPSEC NAT transversal RFC 3947 was not deemed necessary to the design.
Question 7 Can you please supply the following reference doc s listed in the Carling Campus RFP: TS-06 IPv6 Technical Standard V1.2 TS-03 WIBN Technical Standard V1.0 Final TS-04 QoS Technical Standard Draft V1.0 WIBN Generic Large/Complex Sit Detail Design Document V1.0 DND Carling Campus SID 1.5 Answer 7 The DDS was not in the official document and as such will not be not provided the other requested documents have been added as attachments to the RFP in Buy and Sell Appendix 002 AMENDMENT TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 1.0 Insert Section 4.1.1 Evaluation Procedures for Alternative Solutions (A) Solutions that are equivalent function and quality that are fully compatible and interoperable with the existing equipment owned by Canada will be considered where the Bidder: i. clearly designates in its bid the brand name, model and/or part number of the proposed equivalent product; ii. demonstrates that the proposed alternative is fully compatible, interoperates with and is interchangeable with the item(s) specified in this bid solicitation; iii. provides complete specifications and descriptive technical documentation for each alternative item proposed; iv. substantiates the compliance of its proposed alternative by demonstrating that it meets all mandatory performance criteria that are specified in this bid solicitation; and v. clearly identifies those areas in the specifications and descriptive technical documentation that demonstrate the equivalence of the proposed equivalent product. If requested during evaluation, the Bidder must submit a sample of any proposed products in alternative solution to the Contracting Authority for testing. If requested during evaluation, the Bidder must provide a demonstration of its proposed equivalent product.
(B) Proposed alternative solutions will be considered non-responsive if: i. the bid fails to provide all the information required to allow the Contracting Authority to evaluate the equivalency of the proposed alternative, including additional information requested by the Contracting Authority during the evaluation to supplement the information submitted in the bid (Note: it is the responsibility of the Bidder to include all information required to evaluate equivalency as described above; however, all bidders acknowledge that Canada will have the right, but not the obligation, to request any additional information during the evaluation that it requires to make a determination regarding equivalency); ii. the Contracting Authority determines that the proposed alternative solution fails to meet or exceed the mandatory requirements specified in this bid solicitation; or iii. the Contracting Authority determines that the proposed alternative is not equivalent in function or quality to the specifications of this bid solicitation or that the proposed alternative is not fully compatible, interoperable and interchangeable with the existing equipment owned by Canada. 2.0 Delete Section 4.2 a) Step1 Technical Evaluation - Mandatory Technical Criteria: Insert Section 4.2 a) Step1 Technical Evaluation - Mandatory Technical Criteria: Each bid will be reviewed to determine whether it meets the mandatory requirements of the bid solicitation. All elements of the bid solicitation that are mandatory requirements are identified specifically with the words must or mandatory. Bids that do not comply with each and every mandatory requirement will be considered non-responsive and be disqualified. With respect to bids proposing an alternative solution, SSC will determine whether, in its sole opinion, the alternative solution(s) satisfies the operational requirements addressed in this bid solicitation. In order to be awarded a contract; the Bidder must complete the Supply Chain Security Information (SCSI) assessment process and not be disqualified, as described in Form 5. 3.0 Delete Annex C - Form 2 Mandatory Requirements Insert Annex C - Form 2 Mandatory Requirements (Revised November 16, 2015)
4.0 Delete Annex A -Technical Requirements Insert Annex A -Technical Requirements Revised Nov 17 2015