STATE OF ALASKA RFI NUMBER 2517S028 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1)

Transcription

1 STATE OF ALASKA RFI NUMBER 2517S028 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1) AMENDMENT ISSUING OFFICE: Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Statewide Contracting & Procurement P.O. Box (3132 Channel Drive, Room 310) Juneau, Alaska THIS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE AMENDMENT ISSUED: October 7, 2016 RFP TITLE: Amendment #1 answers questions from prospective vendors. 1. Q. Failover between Anchorage and Juneau SOA NOC is highly desirable. What do they currently have (HW-wise), who supplied it, where is this located? We re only aware of the fixed site in KTN (old Seatel unit). A. Perhaps a better way of stating this is single points of failure are less desirable. The state has a firewall ingress/egress point in both ANC and JNU and will have a Meraki concentrator at each. If the solution provided works with our Meraki hardware, we will have failover. NOC is perhaps a poor choice of words if it leads one to envision earth station equipment in JNU and ANC. We do not expect to have shore side dishes at state facilities. If VSAT is one of the technologies utilized, redundancy of earth stations is desirable. We do not anticipate hosting them unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The gear in Ketchikan is a test site that operates as a test vessel. It has a Seatel 4006 antenna that is essentially statically oriented at 123W. We are using an idirect X5 at this site. We would like to have an operation test site at this location as part of the final solution. 2. Q. We would like to request a copy of the network topology map from the State. We need this in order to understand and provide a proper response/solution. A. See attached vessel topology for the M/V Aurora and SOA Core Diagram. 3. Q. Under Solution Requirements, G, 3 Network segment management and control, we request further clarification/definition from AMHS. Please cite an example of how you would expect this to work. A. This is essentially for troubleshooting. Visibility of network path and segments is highly desirable. The more we can see, the easier it is to troubleshoot. For instance documented pingable addresses throughout the network path, especially where support ownership changes hands. Another example would be packet capture capabilities at multiple points in the route. The purpose is to easily identify where failures have occurred and quickly resolve them.

2 RFI #2517S028 Amendment #1 4. Q. Solution Requirements J states, Comprehensive Service Level Agreement (SLA-SOA) in support of the AMHS need for WAN Services. IS the WAN for crew use only. A. Yes the WAN is only for use by the crew and conducting State business in support of the systems listed for the efficient operation of the vessels. 5. Q. Solution Requirements L states, Out of band management and support system, (Uplogix or toehr). We request further clarification/definition from AMHS. Ifyou could cite an example, that would be helpful. A. Uplogix was the example. If the primary form of connectivity is unavailable, another path to the gear for real-time troubleshooting is desirable. This is similar to the old AUX port on Cisco routers. The purpose is to be able to troubleshoot the hardware configurations without the primary WAN link. Travel in Alaska is expensive, the more we can do remotely, the better. 6. Q. Service Level Agreement, Category 6 states, Penalties for Unplanned Outages(s). Do all ships use a CIR (Committed Information Rate)? How are the penalties handled now? Do any vessels use a metered service for the VSAT? A. Currently, Each ship has a CIR that varies by vessel. Penalties are assessed according to metrics defined in the current SLA. A new contract will have a new SLA. This will be a requirement of any new contract. The purpose of this effort is to request information from potential vendors. In this particular case we are looking for how each vendor handles penalties for unplanned outage. We understand the details will depend on contract specifics. We are looking for the chargeback models a vendor makes available to their customers as part of their service packages. We do not currently have a metered service. 7. Q. Under Maintenance and Support you list Demarcation Point. We request a copy of the State s WAN topology map. A. We are looking for your proposed Demarcation Point. The State will support and maintain the onboard Meraki security appliance and the Meraki MX600 concentrators at the datacenters. See attached vessel topology for the M/V Aurora and SOA Core Diagram. 8. Q. Under Maintenance and Support you list Change Management. We require further clarification/definition from AMHS. Please cite and example of how this works. A. What we are looking for is how vendors manage and communicate change. We require interaction with two SOA agencies Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) and DOT Information Systems and Support Division (ISSD). We don t need to map detailed processes for this effort. What we are interested in is how you manage and communicate change. What sort of case management system do you utilize? How adaptable are you to providing information to multiple parties as a matter of standard operating procedure? 9. Q. Please provide a list of the current CIR s and which vessel use each of them. A. As the CIR is the bandwidth, we have provided Minimum Required Bandwidth and the Minimum Service Window Bandwidth for each vessel/location. 10. Q. Please provide a list of ships that have had repeated issues with their VSAT service. A. We do not see this as relevant to the RFI. 2

3 RFI #2517S028 Amendment #1 11. Q. Please provide vessel GA s for mapping location for (potentially) new HW fitting. A. With this RFI we will not get into that level of detail. We are looking for possible technologies and order of detail cost for such efforts. We are not looking for vendors to engineer vessel specific solutions through this RFI. 12. Q. In regards to the EXISTING VSAT EQUIPMENT BY VESSEL Is the intention to replace all of these? Are there equipment residuals? Is the replacement equipment to be leased? Term? A. Whether or not the equipment is replaced will depend on the final solution. We are open to the possibility. Given multiple solutions, if all other things are equal or near equal and one solution can reduce cost by re-using the existing equipment, that would be a favorable situation for the solution that re-uses the gear. Although we do not know if the existing VSAT is the final and best solution for the AMHS. We are just seeking ideas/concepts at this time. Leasing equipment is a possibility. That would be determined by the RFP to be issued. 13. Q.What is MSWB for what service needs to be rendered on a daily basis? Footnote implies expectation of achieving this as a burstable speed for 60 min / day. A. The purpose of the minimum service window bandwidth (MSWB) is two-fold. To provide a redundant form of connectivity to the vessel, such a ship to shore wireless, and to provide a window in which each vessel can move large data transfers to and from the vessel. Examples include; Packages, image updates, windows updates, back-ups, etc. A burstable speed may be a potential solution for the large data transfer, but it may not provide redundancy. 14. Q. Is Minimum Required Bandwidth (MRB) considered the CIR? A. We have not identified a pure CIR. The minimum required bandwidth could be viewed as a CIR. What we are looking for is no less than this available bandwidth per vessel. There may be ways to accomplish this without establishing a traditional CIR. 15. Q. Is it safe to assume the MRB is down (bandwidth) only? A. Yes. We are interested in the up numbers you can provide, but we have not specified any minimums. What we have specified is the minimum we are looking for. We are interested in the maximums as well. John C. Wynne Procurement Officer PHONE: (907) john.wynne@alaska.gov 3

4 Satellites Galaxy 18 / GE 23 Protocol Processors SeaTel DAC 2200 Antenna Control A Si ITC DMZ VLAN 1333 Assigned to SAT0 RX/TX Management LAN B/1 idirect e8350 Sat. Modem ETH0 - LAN B/8 USEI E.S. - BREWSTER, WA 100BaseT FD CIR: Burst: B INTERNET C MX600 Meraki MX600 WAN 1 Extranet DMZ Si SOA JUNEAU DMZ 6509 Meraki VPN LAN 1 Internet 2 LAN 2 LAN 3 DOT AMHS Vessel Aurora Meraki MX60 100BaseT FD State of VLAN 125 Alaska FE 24 Data Network On Ferry DOT AMHS Aurora Switch Meraki MS220-48P FE 01 VLAN 625 DOT AMHS Aurora POS Switch Meraki MS220-24P Internet D JUNEAU - SOB SOA WAN Segregated POS Network E dot-jun-hq DOT JUNEAU HQ AMHS Admin LAN Forum Systems Group (800) Ext. 1 support@forumsystemsgroup.com AMHS Port Steward (907) VLAN Legend VLAN ### Internal (secure) VLAN VLAN ### External (insecure) VLAN TUN ### Tunnels (GRE,IPSec,etc.) Serial Circuits DS-3 OC-3 ATM 56K FT-1 Connection Legend Ethernet Cat5/6 T-1 Ethernet Fiber Ethernet Trunk TLS WAN Drawing ID: Aurora Network Documentation vsd Drawn By: A. Schultz Date: 09/02/10 Approved : S. Simkins Last Edited: 02/06/15 Scale: NTS Sheet: 13 STATE OF ALASKA

5