Wiki for PWGSC RFI PW-$$EE-015-18733

This wiki is a place to build a submission for the Request for Information identified below.

The contributors to this submission are identified here, and listed again at the end of the submission. Don't forget to add yourself to the contributors page if you've contributed!!

 RFI - NO CHARGE LICENSED SOFTWARE

Reference Number PW-$$EE-015-18733

 Solicitation Number 	24062-080278/A
 Organization Name 	Public Works and Government Services Canada
		Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada
 Source ID 	FD.DP.QC.10077.C2

Link: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3d%3d

Published 2009-01-20

Revised 2009-01-22

Closing 2009-02-19 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST

Dates: Does anyone know changes between Jan 20 and Jan 22 versions? I may have the earlier version here.

I looked at the questions; they're still the same. I didn't check anything else though. — CS

Q1. I (JN) have put some comments on the RFI process here. Should they be in a preamble? I suspect that the readers will cut and paste the responses by question, and preambles may be dumped. Comments?

Q1. MCR – I like the comment in the discussion about fair process for evaluation. Should this not be in the response? R: It depends. What is the goal of this submission? What is the goal of this RFI? If we are replying with the assumption that they are trying to ask about FLOSS, then we should MUCH MORE clearly say that we reject their definition, and that we are operating under our new statement. R:(JN) – MCR - Can you word it so that this is clear without doing too much damage to current content? If so, go for it.

Q4. I (EJL) have added my interpretation of this question to the discussion area, which I believe will be helpful, and some content along these lines to the Q4 page itself. Thoughts?

Q4. EJL - Given the massive number of databases the GC must keep, I think one of the big questions within this question is whether there is a drop-in replacement for SQL Server (or whatever database system they are using), so that existing databases can be used as-is - and if not, a rough idea of what is involved in migration. I'm afraid I lack the knowledge to address this.

Resolved:

Q4. Anybody understand it? – Charles has provided a response that makes sense.

Preamble

Q1 Q1 discussion

Q2 Q2 discussion

Q3 Q3 discussion

Q4 Q4 discussion

Q5 Q5 discussion

Q6 Q6 discussion

Q7 Q7 discussion

Q8 Q8 discussion

Q9 Q9 discussion

Q10 Q10 discussion

Appendix A Appendix A discussion

Appendix B Appendix B discussion

Contributors

Canada has a Request for Information (RFI) related to No-Charge Licensed Software (typically referred to as Free and Open Source Software or FOSS and also applicable to freeware). For the purpose of the RFI, No Charge Licensed Software means Licensed Software that is available at no charge for the Licensed Software and is typically made available as a free download from the Internet. No Charge Licensed Software may also have No Charge Software Support Services (NCSSS) available at no charge from the Internet.

No Charge Licensed Software categories would include software categories such as Operating Systems, Office Automation Office Suites, Internet browsers, Application servers, development tools and utilities.

For the RFI it should be assumed that Canada is a consumer as compared to a developer or distributor. As Canada consumes No-Charge Licensed Software that is available at no charge, what information, criteria and factors should Canada be aware of as part of the process of deciding the who, what, where, when and why and by whom considerations. For example, what factors should be considered, when should those decisions be made and why should they be made. In addition there may be questions that should be asked as part of the process, see Section 3 for additional questions.

In responding to the RFI, information related to the questions will be appreciated. In addition if there is information that is relevant to the development of guidelines that would impact a decision process it should also be included. If possible the information provided should be complete and not require referencing other material not included unless there is no other way of providing the information

The purpose of the RFI is to help the Government of Canada (GC) put together guidelines related to the planning, acquisition, use and disposal of No Charge Licensed Software (NCLS). While there is already significant interest for No Charge Licensed Software within the Government of Canada there are many questions being asked, see below. There exists operationally a requirement to produce common guidelines that are fair, open and transparent and can be applied consistently across departments.

The objective of the RFI is to provide an opportunity for those interested to provide information they feel Canada should be aware of when developing internal guidelines related to the planning, usage and disposal of No Charge Licensed Software. Information that would be relevant to the development of guidelines will be appreciated. The information provided will be reviewed by Canada, as part of a process of producing No Charge Licensed Software Guidelines for Government of Canada End-Users.

The following sub-sections provide specific instructions for respondents.

2.1 Nature of Request for Information

This is not a bid solicitation. This RFI will not result in the award of any contract; therefore, potential suppliers of any goods or services described in this RFI should not earmark stock or facilities, nor allocate resources, as a result of any information contained in this RFI. Nor will this RFI result in the creation of any source list; therefore, whether or not any potential supplier responds to this RFI will not preclude that supplier from participating in any future procurement. Also, the procurement of any of the goods and services described in this RFI will not necessarily follow this RFI. This RFI is simply intended to solicit feedback from industry with respect to the contents of this RFI.

2.2 Response Costs

GC will not reimburse any respondent for expenses incurred in responding to this RFI.

2.3 Treatment of Responses

Use of Responses: Responses will not be formally evaluated. However, the responses received may be used by the Crown to develop or modify procurement strategies or any draft documents contained in this RFI. The Crown will review all responses received by the RFI closing date. The Crown may, in its discretion, review responses received after the RFI closing date.

Review Team: A review team composed of representatives from the Crown will review the responses. The Crown reserves the right to hire any independent consultant, or use any government resources that it considers necessary to review any response. Not all members of the review team will necessarily review all responses.

Confidentiality: Respondents should mark any portions of their response that they consider proprietary or confidential. The Crown and its consultants will treat those portions of the responses as confidential to the extent permitted by the Access to Information Act.

Post-Submission Review Meetings: The Crown may request individual Post-Submission Review Meetings with respondents to provide clarity on information provided. If required, these will be held at the most appropriate location, to be determined at a later date. The intent of these meetings will be to provide an opportunity for a face-to-face discussion with respondents. Although respondents may request a meeting, and their request will be considered, the Crown will determine whether it requires additional information from any given respondent and will schedule meetings accordingly. All such requests, by respondents, should be forwarded to the Contracting Authority.

2.4 Response Format

Section 3 contains specific questions that are consecutively numbered. Respondents are asked to submit responses indexed by the specific RFI question number. Respondents are asked to repeat the question prior to their response for reviewer convenience.

Respondents are requested to submit one softcopy, in PDF format, of their response.

A) Cover Page: If the response includes multiple volumes, respondents are requested to indicate on the front cover page of each volume the title of the response, the solicitation number, the volume number and the full legal name of the respondent. B) Title Page: The first page of each volume of the response, after the cover page, should be the title page, which should contain: - The title of the respondent's response and the volume number; - The name and address of the respondent; - The name, address and telephone number of the respondent's contact; - The date; and -The solicitation number.

2.5 Numbering System

Each question has its own unique number. It is prefixed with “Q-” followed by a sequence number (e.g. Q-1). Respondents are requested to prepare their response using a numbering system corresponding to the one in this RFI. All references to descriptive material, technical manuals, and any brochures included as part of the response, should be referenced accordingly.

2.6 Enquiries

Because this is not a bid solicitation, the Crown will not necessarily respond to all enquiries in writing or by circulating answers to all potential suppliers. However, respondents with questions regarding this RFI may direct their enquiries to the Contracting Authority identified herein.

2.7 Submission of Responses

Respondents should send responses electronically via e-mail to the Contracting Authority's address identified herein by the date specified on the front page of the RFI.

All requested information is to be provided to the Contracting Authority on or before the closing date of the RFI.

2.8 Contracting Authority Contracting Authority: Emilio Franco E-mail Address: Emilio.Franco@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca Telephone No.: (819) 956-1184 Facsimile No.: (819) 953-3703

This section solicits specific feedback and comments on No Charge Licensed Software. Detailed comments and responses are requested.

In the Overview, the Crown provided a definition for No Charge Licensed Software. Is this an appropriate definition?

Q1

Q1 discussion

What are reasonable criteria that the Crown should consider in a decision process for acquiring No Charge Licensed Software?

Q2

Q2 discussion

What factors other than price should be considered as part of an evaluation guideline for No Charge Licensed Software? Are there other factors beyond those outlined in Appendix A & B that the Crown should consider?

Price should be a low priority. Total cost to use for the organization is a better measure, but only if the software does the job required.

How should existing Government Furnished Equipment, Services, Service Level Agreements and internal resources be considered when evaluating the usage of No Charge Licensed Software?

How practical is No Charge Licensed Software? Are there hidden costs that need to be considered as part of the process of evaluating the alternatives available?

What are the general financial, technical and security risks associated with acquiring and using No Charge Licensed Software?

How do Open Standards and interoperability factor into evaluation considerations?

How does the technology factor into the evaluation consideration, such as ability to maintain and evergreen?

How does the Crown evaluate the flexibility of the licensing models for No Charge Licensed Software?

What impact will No Charge Licensed Software have on Government Licensed End-User Networks (http://software.tpsgc.gc.ca//catalogue/index-e.cfm)

The following list includes criteria typically associated with the acquisition and evaluation of licensed software. Please identify if these criteria also apply to No Charge Licensed Software.

1.1 ~ Licensed Software ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.2 ~ Warranty ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.3 ~ Maintenance ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.4 ~ Support Services ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.5 ~ Media & Documentation ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.6 ~ Optional Maintenance ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.7 ~ Optional Support Services ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.8 ~ Optional Training ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.9 ~ Optional Professional Services ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.10 ~ Indemnity ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.11 ~ Limitation of Liability ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

1.12 ~ Flowthrough of Legal Obligations ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.1 ~ Transition ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.2 ~ Translation ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.3 ~ Installation ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.4 ~ Development ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.5 ~ Quality Control ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.6 ~ Testing ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.7 ~ Implementation ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.8 ~ Production ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

2.9 ~ Performance ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.1 ~ Functional Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.2 ~ Users Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.3 ~ Performance Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.4 ~ Quality Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.5 ~ Organizational Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.6 ~ Security Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.7 ~ Support Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.8 ~ Systems Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

3.9 ~ Reference Requirements ~ Yes ___ No ___ Not Required ___

The process begins with a request from an application delivery group or end user to use a particular piece of software. Depending on the nature of the acquisition (specifically, whether or not the acquisition involves a cost greater than $0), the process proceeds either through a conventional procurement workflow (not detailed here) or through the “No Charge” acquisition process.

The No Charge process consists of five concurrent streams of activity, each of which is critical to the successful acquisition, management and integration of the software within the GC or departmental environment.

These five streams consist of the following:

1. Architectural Review and Approval – This involves the applicable Enterprise Architecture group reviewing the product to ensure that it:
   1. Is appropriate for the use specified in the request
   2. Works well within the technical environment
   3. Does not violate or overlap with any existing standards
2. Financial Risk Assessment – Per Treasury Board Secretariat direction, the use of No Charge Software (particularly Free and Open Source Software) requires the completion of a financial risk assessment. The financial risk assessment must consider the risk exposure per year against the financial benefit. Depending on the level of risk involved, approval of the risk assessment will be required by:
   1. The applicable Senior Financial Officer or delegate – for substantive risk
   2. The business owner of the impacted or system – where risk is non-substantive
3. Justification of No Charge Acquisition - A Procurement Officer must review the justification for acquisition of No Charge Software, for clarification and as due diligence for the validity of reasons and that they will stand possible future scrutiny.
4. Investigation of Security Risks – Given the potentially heightened security risk of downloadable No Charge Software, the appropriate IT Security Officer must investigate and approve No Charge Software before it is approved for use. In particular, the security assessment will assure that the product does not contain viruses, malware or other means for an attacker to compromise the GC or departmental environment.
5. Software License Review – Due to the diverse nature of licence models associated with No Charge Software, a review must be conducted to identify potential legal/policy impediments for the GC in agreeing to a particular licence agreement. The intent is to accumulate a list of acceptable licences (including popular ones such as GPL, LGPL, Apache etc.) so that a particular license model would only have to be examined once across the entire GC. Some of the most significant legal/policy concerns would include:
   1. No warranty or limitation of liability, the imposition of flowthrough obligations to 3rd parties, and obligations that the Crown indemnify licensors or 3rd parties.
   2. ownership of data manipulated/stored with the product
   3. limitations on the use of the product conflicting with GC or departmental intent
   4. instances where the Government of Canada could be obliged to pay the creator.

If all five approvals are received, then the software can be installed on the appropriate environment(s), be they servers or desktops. The same change management and deployment processes apply as to software that has been acquired through conventional procurement.

Delivery Date: Above-mentioned (Feb 19, 2009)

The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any procurement.

Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.

 Franco (ee div), Emilio
 11 Laurier St. / 11 rue, Laurier
 4C1, Place du Portage, Phase III
 Gatineau
 Quebec
 K1A 0S5
 (819) 956-1184 ( )
 

Contact(s)

Contracting Authority

	Name 	Emilio Franco (ee div)
	Address 	11 Laurier St. / 11 rue, Laurier 4C1, Place du Portage, Phase III
	City 	Gatineau
	State / Province 	Quebec
	Country 	Canada
	Postal Code 	K1A 0S5
	Phone 	(819) 956-1184 ( )
	Fax 	(819) 953-3703
	Email:  Emilio.Franco@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca
	Website URL: http:www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q%3d%3d 	

See rfi_contributors page