Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Thanks everyone for your insights. We are preparing to post an RFI on NASA SEWP to garner some feedback. I’m not sure there is a silver bullet solution, so it is a matter of sorting through each strategy. Probably some trial and error before settling into a genuinely workable solution, or a series of them. I hope to document progress along the way. If you stumble upon any information please reach out.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 16:01
From: Jason Bakke
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
That’s awesome Mark, thanks for the heads up! I’m sure there are folks in our community who would love to read and respond to the RFI once you get it posted. If you are able to let us know when it goes live, we can try and help bolster the number of quality responses you receive from industry & suppliers.
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2016 09:11
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Thanks everyone for your insights. We are preparing to post an RFI on NASA SEWP to garner some feedback. I’m not sure there is a silver bullet solution, so it is a matter of sorting through each strategy. Probably some trial and error before settling into a genuinely workable solution, or a series of them. I hope to document progress along the way. If you stumble upon any information please reach out.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 16:01
From: Jason Bakke
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Mark – Have you contact GSA for what they are doing with IaaS, especially with their pricing on their IaaS BPA? Click here.
——————————
Jaime Gracia
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2016 10:53
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
That’s awesome Mark, thanks for the heads up! I’m sure there are folks in our community who would love to read and respond to the RFI once you get it posted. If you are able to let us know when it goes live, we can try and help bolster the number of quality responses you receive from industry & suppliers.
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2016 09:11
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Thanks everyone for your insights. We are preparing to post an RFI on NASA SEWP to garner some feedback. I’m not sure there is a silver bullet solution, so it is a matter of sorting through each strategy. Probably some trial and error before settling into a genuinely workable solution, or a series of them. I hope to document progress along the way. If you stumble upon any information please reach out.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 16:01
From: Jason Bakke
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Jaime – Thanks for the input. I haven’t contacted GSA, so that’s a great suggestion. I’ll look to do that.
To address Frank’s thought from a couple nights ago, the RFI was posted on NASA SEWP and actually closes in just a few hours. If we post in a different forum I’ll respond to this group for awareness.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2016 17:45
From: Jaime Gracia
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Mark – Have you contact GSA for what they are doing with IaaS, especially with their pricing on their IaaS BPA? Click here.
——————————
Jaime Gracia
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2016 10:53
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
That’s awesome Mark, thanks for the heads up! I’m sure there are folks in our community who would love to read and respond to the RFI once you get it posted. If you are able to let us know when it goes live, we can try and help bolster the number of quality responses you receive from industry & suppliers.
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2016 09:11
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Thanks everyone for your insights. We are preparing to post an RFI on NASA SEWP to garner some feedback. I’m not sure there is a silver bullet solution, so it is a matter of sorting through each strategy. Probably some trial and error before settling into a genuinely workable solution, or a series of them. I hope to document progress along the way. If you stumble upon any information please reach out.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 16:01
From: Jason Bakke
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————
Mark, are you looking to use SEWP’s BPA-like delivery order with options?
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2016 09:11
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Thanks everyone for your insights. We are preparing to post an RFI on NASA SEWP to garner some feedback. I’m not sure there is a silver bullet solution, so it is a matter of sorting through each strategy. Probably some trial and error before settling into a genuinely workable solution, or a series of them. I hope to document progress along the way. If you stumble upon any information please reach out.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 16:01
From: Jason Bakke
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Frank, a requirements contract would be interesting, though I’d imagine one would want to narrow the requirement from IaaS (all IaaS services) to IaaS supporting a specific system or environment. Particularly for larger systems, this may lead to better pricing.
I’m wondering, though, whether the OP’s question relates to how IaaS “snaps back” to baseline after a spike in use (for example, I/O, data transfer, storage, processing power) or to funding issues specifically. If the former, I think it’s routine for IaaS (including on GSA’s now-dead IaaS BPA) to be sold as a baseline configuration with fixed unit pricing for additional bandwidth, storage, etc., for the so-called elasticity. The latter (funding) relies on the buying agency’s ability to forecast demand to set monthly NTEs. I suppose the cloud service provider could agree to allow service to exceed those NTEs, hoping for a ratification.
As a reminder, GSA is working on changes to make cloud procurement easier. They apparently believe a statutory remedy is required.
——————————
Jason Bakke
Proposal Manager
Censeo Consulting Group (Censeo)
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-29-2016 15:09
From: Frank McNally
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Has there been any attempts to buy cloud services through a requirements-type contract? As you know, a requirements contract is basically an agreement between the agency and a single vendor to buy all services of a specific nature (eg, IaaS) from that vendor when the need arises. A classic example is usually seen in manufacturing, where a procuring agency would agree to buy all widgets from a single manufacturer for a specific period of performance, where the specific number of widgets required is unknown (although min and max ranges I believe are established).
Seeing as how IaaS is as close to commodity IT as you might find, there could be advantages to buying through a requirements-type contract. For one, they’d be simpler to administer at the order level because they are traditionally single award and rely on fixed price units (the widget price is the widget price). With slight modification, you could see this working for IaaS where the fixed price units could reflect ranges of consumption to account for the natural ebbs and flows of activity. Since you don’t have to worry about competing awards under the single requirements contract, and you have an established ceiling in the requirements contract [I believe this is the case], you have more agility to pay by the drink without the risk of anti-deficiency.
The single award also gives you visibility into the consumption habits of your customer, because the orders are consolidated and you can streamline reporting on consumption during the performance period. I could see having a short term requirements contract with follow on options that allows you and the provider to normalize the fixed price units over time.
I’m sure there are challenges with this approach so I’ll invite you and anyone else (I’m looking at you, Jason B!) to poke holes in the name of progress!
-Frank
——————————
Frank McNally
Director, Learning & Content Development
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 19:53
From: Raj Sharma
Subject: IaaS Pricing
I’ll also check with some people at Censeo that may have some experience with this.
——————————
Raj Sharma
Public Spend Forum
Washington DC
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2016 09:09
From: Spence Witten
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Hey there Mark
So I personally do not have any experience with IaaS pricing. However I do know that both FCC and the Department of Transportation make extensive use of a specific IaaS platform. If you happen to know anyone at either of those organizations you may want to reach out and ask what their experience has been.
I’ll also ask around to some IaaS vendors I know.
——————————
Spence Witten
Director of Federal Sales
Lunarline
————————————————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2016 21:14
From: Mark Junda
Subject: IaaS Pricing
Wondering if anyone has had success pricing IaaS (cloud storage, hosting) in the federal space. I know there are various pricing models, some that push the limits of federal contracting. My concern is that each time we reach our peak levels we then fund up to that amount. A better model would be to find your baseline needs and react to your peaks, but then revert back when your peaks subside. The example always given is that retailers don’t pay for their Black Friday levels for the entire year. Would love to hear some thoughts.
——————————
Mark Junda
Eatontown NJ
(732) 795-1019
——————————