SOURCES SOUGHT
D -- Request for Information for Enterprise Technical Support Services (Microsoft)
- Notice Date
- 11/10/2004
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 541519
— Other Computer Related Services
- Contracting Office
- ACA, ITEC4, Directorate of Contracting , 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0700
- ZIP Code
- 22331-0700
- Solicitation Number
- W91QUZ-05-R-ETSS
- Response Due
- 12/15/2004
- Archive Date
- 2/13/2005
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP). The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to solicit industry feedback on how to structure, fund, and manage an Enterprise Technical Support Services (ETSS) contract vehicle for Microsoft products supporting the Army business and warfighter user while in garrison, or while deploying or deployed. This ETSS (Microsoft) will mainly provide break/fix and integration support for Microsoft technologies distributed throughout Army. As the Army continues to transform and manage the infostructure at an en terprise level, it seeks to evaluate how it provides technical support for Microsoft products and platforms, and how it can best leverage the Armys economies of scale while preserving the ability to respond to local requirements in a timely and efficient manner. This challenge is exacerbated by the distributed nature of the Army, where users are disbursed throughout the globe under various chains of command, operating in garrison or while deploying or deployed, and by the inherent complexities in providing centralized or decentralized funding and management for this support. ETSS (MICROSOFT) BACKGROUND: Army organizations currently have only one enterprise contract vehicle with which to purchase break/fix and integration support services specifically for Microsoft technologies, namely the Microsoft (MS) Premier Support Servic e (PSS) enterprise agreement through the Army Small Computer Program (ASCP). The MS PSS enterprise agreement offers nine contract line numbers (CLINs) designed to fit most organizations, from large to small. The agreement is an Indefinite Delivery Indef inite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract directly with MS. The basic CLIN structure is listed below with varying numbers of hours, incidents, IDs, etc. provided depending on the size and complexity of the organization. Technical Account Manager (TAM) A dedicated manager that works closely with the organization for X number of hours to understand the systems and business goals (one person eight hours) Alliance support team (AST) Dedicated product engineers- reactive support Y number of hours for platform issues Z number of hours for messaging issues Named contracts X number of individuals identified on the Army side to open up an incident or engage contract resources Support incidents Only X incidents per year to call 24/7 Group web IDs X number of IDs to access to the online resources that are covered on the Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) Group services desk IDs X number of desk IDs that grants access to the service desk and allow opening an incident (NOTE: there are only Y incidents allowed) TechNet single server (12 months subscription) X number of separate mailing address to where the TechNet CDs are mailed. Put the CDs on server and everybody can have access to TechNet. TechNet is for personnel managing systems. Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) universal subscriptions X number of mailing of monthly CDs with binder and library materials. A developer tool designed for application developer such as web portal or custom application. TAM on-site visits X number of site visits (typically up to two days inclusive of all labor and travel) Army organizations can also implement local contracts with other vendors if this enterprise MS PSS vehicle does not meet the organizations requirements, from either a service or cost perspective. However, from an enterprise perspective, the Army believes this current situation does not optimize the effectiveness or efficiency in providing Microsoft product-related technical support services. The following are some of the reasons that advocate a review of the current way technical support services are struc tured, funded, and managed for Microsoft technologies in the Army: Each Army organization purchases its own technical support services for Microsoft technologies on an as-needed basis, even under the current MS PSS enterprise agreement. By operating in this isolated manner, organizations are not able to easily share solutions to common problems. In addition, this isolation prevents the Army from leveraging its size to increase its buying power to meet support requirements outsi de the MS PSS vehicle. Army organization(s) may acquire technical support services that parallel or conflict with efforts of other Army organization(s) or with the overall strategic information technology (IT) objectives of the Army. The Army at each management level lacks understanding, tracking, and control on how much money is being spent on technical support services for Microsoft technologies Army organizations in the same command may purchase technical support services for the same Microsoft product-related problem, resulting in the Army paying twice for the same service. As the Army moves towards a single Directorate of Information Management (DOIM) operation and centralizes administration for IT common-user services, support services should be rewarded for economics and effectiveness as an underpinning contract. There are other, non-Microsoft industry sources (such as training academies, integrators, and other IT activities) for Microsoft product-related technical support that may provide qualified technical support via highly-trained engineers. These sources may also provide other value added services. Current technical support services are funded on an ad-hoc basis rather than on a program basis. This ad-hoc nature of funding prevents these technical services from effectively supporting enterprise priorities. With your input, the Armys objective is to review and perhaps modify its current strategy for providing technical service support for Microsoft technologies to the entire Army. This includes understanding how best to fund and manage this enterprise suppor t, as many of the problems listed above are inherent to a decentralized funding and management strategy. However, the Army also has concerns that more centralized procurement will cause the rapid and early depletion of centrally funded services, and that m ore centralized management may not be flexible or responsive to local requirements. Therefore, feedback to the structure, funding, and management of this support is needed if the Army is to meet its imperatives to enhance the security, capabilities and res ource efficiencies of the Army IT enterprise environment. SCOPE: ETSS (Microsoft) will be primarily focused on providing break/fix (Tier 1-3 and beyond) and integration support for Microsoft technology in garrison, in deployment, and while deployed. ETSS (MICROSOFT) OBJECTIVES: The following are the Armys objectives in investigating a new ETSS (Microsoft) model: 1. Take advantage of the Armys economies of scale, and ensure that solutions to common problems are leveraged across the enterprise 2. Fund this support in a manner that minimizes the problems inherent with both centralized and decentralized resource and management strategies 3. Provide services in accordance with the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) best practices framework that are flexible, responsive, and can be tailored to the needs of any Army organization at any level 4. Support the overall strategic IT initiatives of the Army: a. Protection of the Army Enterprise Infostructure b. Consolidation of common-user IT services (email, information assurance, web, storage, directory etc.) on Army installations into a Single DOIM c. Tailoring of technical support to more modular brigade combat teams (BCTs) in the operational forces 5. Continue to have access to MS PSS expertise when needed 6. Enable on call technical support that can be provided 24x7 to anyone, anywhere as dictated by mission requirements QUESTIONS: The government is interested in obtaining the following information from industry to consider its development of an ETSS (Microsoft) RFP: 1. How would you satisfy the above objecti ves and how would you solve the Armys challenge in providing Tier 1-3 and beyond break/fix and integration support for Microsoft technology across its enterprise? Assuming there is a single DOIM in place at every Army installation? Assuming there is not a single DOIM in place at every Army installation? 2. How should a large, distributed organization with many diverse and separate sub-organizations structure, fund, manage and execute an enterprise technical support solution for Microsoft technologies, of which MS PSS is an integral part? How do large, dis tributed commercial organizations structure, fund, manage, and execute their own internal enterprise technical support solutions for integration support and Tier 1-3 and beyond break/fix support? 3. What type of contract vehicle would work best? How should it be structured? How would this vehicle integrate with MS PSS and local unique vendors? How would you recommend handling the legacy/existing contracts in place (including the current MS PSS ente rprise agreement) across the Army for Microsoft technology from a funding, execution, and management perspective? How should local support be established, coordinated and funded while meeting the Army objectives? Through DOIMs, regions, Major Army Commands (MACOMs), Brigade Combat Teams, higher tactical echelons, CIO/G6, etc.? 4. How would information on break/fix and integration support problems and resulting solutions be distributed throughout the enterprise? What management reports or metrics should be used, and which ones do you offer? (i.e. cost tracking, problem pattern an alysis, customer satisfaction, resolution times, etc.). How would you suggest making these reports or metrics available across the Army enterprise? 5. How would you suggest measuring your performance to determine if that performance meets the provision of the contract while supporting future competition? 6. How would you provide technical service support to the deployed Army (e.g. technical assistance deployed with the unit, deployable support from the Continental United States, pre-positioned support in Theater, etc.)? When this technical support relies o n connectivity, how would you provide this support in a bandwidth constrained environment? 7. How would you ensure that the technical solutions provided support the Army enterprise vision (i.e. modular restructuring in the operational forces, Active Directory architecture, etc.)? What information or documentation would you require from the gover nment to ensure this? 8. What types of services included under break/fix and integration support (i.e. incident management, problem escalation, disaster recovery, remote resolution, planning and design, etc.) are best provided by MS PSS, and which can best be provided by other vendors? 9. What training and education could be included in an ETSS (Microsoft)? For example, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) training, and educational support? 10. How would you integrate or incorporate the use or potential use of MS PSS for these services? How would the MS PSS support be structured in this enterprise concept? 11. What other services and added value solutions do you propose? For example, support to other software products on Microsoft platforms and other non-Microsoft platforms such as LINUX and UNIX. Your ideas and input in answering the above information will greatly assist us in creating the most appropriate and relevant RFP for ETSS (Microsoft). SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Responses to this RFI will be in the form of a White Paper, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, and supported by a Microsoft Power Point briefing, including notes, not to exceed fifteen (15) slides. Submit Responses, via e-mail, to M s. Patricia Whitenton at patricia.whitenton@us.army.mil no later than close of business on December 15, 2004.
- Place of Performance
- Address: ACA, ITEC4 Directorate of Contracting , 2461 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria VA
- Zip Code: 22331-0700
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 22331-0700
- Record
- SN00707025-W 20041112/041110212118 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |