GSA is seeking industry feedback on proposed changes to the Cloud Computing SIN 132 40. GSA released a Request for Information (RFI) through the eBuy system detailing the changes and specific questions to Industry.
The purpose of the proposed changes is to revise the definition of Cloud Computing to allow for more applications and services to be provided to the Federal government. Several proposed changes include:
- Revising the name of the SIN to reflect “Cloud and Cloud-Related IT Professional Services.”
- Addition of clarifying language to solve ambiguities about the necessity of “metering,” required by the NIST Cloud essential characteristics. In short, SIN 132-40 now clarifies that Cloud products must have discrete “pay as you go” measurements of appropriate compute resources to ensure the Government realizes the benefit of Cloud deployments.
- Addition of IT Professional Services to the SIN. This change will allow IT services organizations to provide IT professional services in direct support of Cloud migration and adoption. The focus of these IT professional services shall be aligned to assessing Cloud solutions, preparing for Cloud solutions, refactoring workloads for Cloud solutions, migrating Cloud solutions, and providing governance to Cloud solutions.
- Evaluation factors will be removed from Critical Element terms and conditions and moved to CI-FSS-152-N ADDITIONAL EVALUATION FACTORS FOR NEW OFFERORS UNDER SCHEDULE 70.
GSA is seeking industry feedback on the following areas:
- For overall Cloud Services, can they be developed and or modified in order to offer to customers that are OCONUS (Outside Continental United States) via GSA Schedule 70? If not, what are the issues that would prevent it from being offered?
- For Cloud Services (i.e. IaaS, etc.), is there anything in the proposed language that would impede the Government’s desire to gain access to Cloud products?
- For Cloud Services (i.e. IaaS, etc.), is there a more precise way to describe the minimal increment of the “metered services” requirement to reflect the Government’s desire to gain the benefit of “pay as you go” consumption? How is the “pay-as-you-go” model currently structured with regard to price? Is there an alternative approach that would be more effective?
- For Cloud Services (i.e. IaaS, etc.), if there are instances when Cloud products cannot meet the requirement of frequent incremental billing because they require annual fees, are there any examples when these products could not be considered Term Licenses (132-32)?
- For Cloud-Related IT Professional Services, are there any particular services that are relevant for supporting the Government’s migration and adoption of Cloud products that should be added to the list of eligible services?
- For Cloud-Related IT Professional Services, is there a better way to describe the services that the Government seeks to support its desire to find specific expertise related to Cloud deployments?
- For Cloud-Related IT Professional Services, is there anything in the proposed language that would inhibit contractors or impede the Government’s access to providers of Cloud related services? Would the services have to meet FISMA requirements?
The deadline for responses is Tuesday, October 9, 2018. You may email your responses to stacy.l[email protected] with the subject line of “IT Schedule 70 RFI Response re: Software SINs”
You may also send your responses to [email protected] to be included in our compilation response.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the Cloud Computing SIN or the GSA Schedule.
Latest posts by Dan Coley (see all)
- Is it Now Easier to Enter the Professional Services Schedule? - February 8, 2019
- TXMAS Temporarily Suspending New Offers - February 8, 2019
- What A Government Shutdown Means for Contractors - January 2, 2019