FSO_RFI_Questions Answered.docx

RFI Amendment / Clarification – Vendor Questions and Government Responses Reference: FSO RFI [M67854-25-I-2033]

1. Q: Can vendors submit more than one product in Attachment 1?

A: Yes. Vendors may submit more than one product for consideration. The Government prefers that each product be documented on a separate Attachment 1 matrix to ensure clarity and consistency of evaluation.

2. Q: Will DoD SAFE be available for guest users outside DoD?

A: Yes. For non-DoD participants, the Government will issue a DoD SAFE drop-off request link upon request. Vendors should coordinate with the listed POCs prior to submission deadlines.

3. Q: Is there a standard for degraded visual environment (DVE) conditions?

A: The Government has not defined a single standard for degraded visual environments. Vendors are encouraged to report performance against commonly recognized conditions such as fog, rain, snow, dust/sand, and haze. Assumptions regarding particle size, density, or visibility should be explicitly stated in responses.

4. Q: What are the key evaluation criteria?

A: Responses will be assessed based on clarity and completeness of technical capability descriptions, relevance to USMC operational environments, maturity/readiness of the technology, and potential for integration with existing C4I systems.

5. Q: What is the timeline for an RFP?

A: At this time, no specific timeline for an RFP has been established. Information gathered through this RFI will inform the Government’s decision-making regarding any future solicitations.

6. Q: What is the timeline for follow-on actions?

A: Depending on the quality of responses, the Government may elect to conduct additional market research, including vendor demonstrations or requests for supplemental information, prior to any acquisition decision.

7. Q: How should vendors address intellectual property/licensing considerations?

A: The Government requests vendors identify any IP or licensing constraints in their responses. No special considerations beyond standard DoD acquisition practices apply at this stage.

8. Q: What delivery schedule should vendors use for quantities of 1, 10, and 50 units?

A: The Government has not defined required delivery timelines. Vendors are encouraged to provide estimated production lead times for various quantities as part of their response.

9. Q: Is there a target unit price?

A: No target pricing has been established. Vendors should provide Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs for individual units and scaled quantities.

10. Q: Should vendors include performance in maritime, littoral, or urban environments?

A: Vendors are encouraged to include performance data in representative environments such as maritime humidity, littoral haze, and urban canyon conditions, as well as clear line-of-sight.

11. Q: What target visibilities should be used for clear air and degraded visibility?

A: The Government has not specified standard visibility ranges. Vendors should define the visibility levels used in their testing (e.g., kilometers visibility, dB/km attenuation) and present corresponding performance data.

12. Q: Is the Government interested in hybrid transport architectures or stand-alone systems?

A: PM TCE is interested in understanding FSO both as a stand-alone solution and as part of a hybrid transport network with other LOS and SATCOM capabilities. Vendors may address either or both approaches.

13. Q: Will the Government conduct live demonstrations or laboratory evaluations?

A: The Government has not committed to live demonstrations during the market research phase. Any demonstrations will be determined based on the responses received.

14. Q: What acquisition paths are under consideration?

A: All potential acquisition approaches remain under consideration, including full and open competition, OTA prototypes, and SBIR Phase III transitions.

15. Q: Which USMC C4I environments are priority for interoperability?

A: The Government is particularly interested in potential integration with CAC2S, NOTM, and joint/coalition C4I frameworks such as JADC2.

16. Q: What are the Government’s expectations for training and sustainment?

A: The Government anticipates initial training may be vendor-provided, with follow-on sustainment integrated into existing USMC communications training pipelines where feasible.

17. Q: Should vendors distinguish between different levels of technology maturity?

A: Yes. Vendors should clearly state TRL/MRL and provide supporting evidence. Distinctions between TRL 6–7 (ready for near-term production) and earlier-stage technologies will be considered.

18. Q: Will the Government accept software-only capabilities?

A: Yes. Vendors may submit software-only solutions (e.g., AI modules for alignment or diagnostics). Such responses should be tied to a hardware platform or include assumptions regarding integration.

19. Q: Are teaming arrangements acceptable?

A: Yes. Responses from teams of vendors (e.g., hardware + software providers) are acceptable.

20. Q: How should TRL be reported for software components?

A: TRL should be assessed relative to the software’s integration into an operationally relevant FSO platform.

21. Q: Should vendors provide ROM pricing for software-only solutions?

A: Vendors may provide ROM pricing for software-only solutions separately, or integrated with hardware partner pricing if submitting jointly.