Attachment L-4 - SMR4 SIR Questions and Answers Amendment 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693KA7-25-R-00001
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document containing 110 vendor questions and government responses related to a Surface Movement Radar Model 4 (SMR4) solicitation. Key clarifications include: proposal due date extended to February 21, 2025; seven first article systems required in base period and up to 27 production systems in Option Period 1; key site installations planned at one ASDE-X dual SMR site and one ASSC site; all antennas require heaters; maximum of eight site installations per year; depot spares and site spares CLINs changed to CPFF type; and FAA Engineering Services will provide lifts, cranes and equipment operators for radar installations.
Technical requirements clarified include: both NTP and PTP timing protocols required; multicast messaging acceptable; Monobit video output required but not for data processing; system must operate in 100 mph winds; maximum altitude requirement remains at 10,000 feet; heated antenna arrays required at designated sites; and redundant SMR sections must connect to both redundant networks. The Q&A also addresses small business goals, pricing structure, evaluation criteria, security requirements, and various technical specifications related to radar performance, installation, and integration.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 61 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SIR Package Q&A
| ID No. | Contract Section | Page # | Section # | Question/Requests for Clarification | Proprietary | |||
| Yes/No | FAA Answers | Amendment | ||||||
| 1 | Attachment J-07 - SMR4 Technical Requirements Matrix_Final | The Instructions tab says there is an "Additional Comments" column, but the "Spec_Req_Traceability_Matrix" and "IRD_Req_Traceability_Matrix" columns do not have these columns - should they? | No | Attachment J-07 is amended to include"Additional Comments" columns for SSD and IRD worksheets respectively. | Please see Attachment J-07 Amendment 2. | |||
| 2 | SMR4 Section C - ASDE-3 SMR Replacement SOW Final | C-46 | 3.6.6 | This section describes CDRL SW03 (SW Test Description) as "describing the software test and validation methodology" which is already included in the DID for the Software Development Plan (CDRL SW05). Also, DID for SW03 describes the SW03 content as including specific test procedures, which overlaps with CDRL TE04. Please clarify the intent of CDRL SW03. | No | SW03 is test specific. SW05 is the Offeror's generic plan. |
SW03 is a detailed summary of the test(s) and the results. SW05 is the Offeror's generic plan. TE04 is a detailed compendium of the data, steps, procedures, etc. used during the test.
| 3 | SECTION H | ||
| SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS | H - 7 | H.2.3 Key Personnel | Paragraph (d) indicates that key personnel under this contract shall not charge the contract on any CLIN(s) other than CLIN X001 Program Management. This seems to be in conflict regarding the Integrated Logistics Support Manager as CLIN X007a contains the costing for Integrated Logistics Support Program Management. The same is true for the Senior Installation Engineer and the Senior Software Engineer roles as each of these roles will play a key role in other direct program CLINs as well. |
Please clarify if the intent really is to have all key personnel charge X001 and all/any other support personnel charge the appropriate direct program CLINs?
No All key personnel shall be charged under x001 CLIN. All support personnel shall be charged to other appropriate direct program CLINs.
4 Section B - Supplies and Services Final Attachment L-6 - Cost Price Workbook Final Section H - Special Contract Clauses Section I - Contract Clauses Final The Cost Price Workbook (CPW) assumes that the price for all FFP CLINs remain fixed for the 14-year period of performance and neither Section H nor Section I call out support for economic adjustments based on a cost index. This will require that vendors conservatively estimate when each CLIN might be purchased in order to set its price, which will result in a higher price for the FAA than if economic adjustments were allowed or vendors were allowed to bid an explicit escalation factor. We suggest that L-6 is updated to enable vendors to bid one or more escalation rates. If an escalation rate is allowed, the Cost Price model should be updated to state the beginning validity date for each period (e.g., Base = January 2026, Option Period 1 = January 2027, Option Period 2 = January 2028) to clearly indicate when escalation begins.
No The Government has considered your request. There is no change to Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook. Offerors may propose their annual escalation factor as part of L.10.3.4.2 priced and unpriced Basis of Estimate (BOE).
5 Attachment J-3 - SSD 18 SMR4-SPEC-SR163 Requirement [SMR4-SPEC-SR163] states that at FAA designated sites, the SMR4 must include a heated antenna array to prevent ice buildup. Have the sites requiring a heated antenna already been identified? If so, please share or point us to them. If not, please consider updating the Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook to enable systems with a heated antenna to be priced differently than systems without a heated antenna. No All antennas require heaters in the development of antenna costs.
6 Attachment L-6 - Cost Price Workbook Final Please consider updating the Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook to enable different pricing for systems that are to be installed on an ATCT versus in a Remote location. This will make it easier to manage changes should the implementation waterfall change from the site list provided in Attachment L-5. No The Government has considered your request. There is no change to Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook.
The Offeror should provide supplemental cost information notating cost differences/assumptions between ATCT versus Remote Location as part of L.10.3.4.2 priced and unpriced Basis of Estimate (BOE).
The Government is interpreting vendor's question to be in relation to Attachment J-5 as opposed to L-5.
7 SMR4 Section C - ASDE-3 SMR Replacement SOW Final 3.6.2 How often are Safety Reviews anticipated to occur? No The Government anticipates safety reviews at PMRs, TIMs, and on site (Contractor facility, Key Site, or Production Sites) as required, until all elements of system safety engineering are finalized and approved by the Government. Safety reviews may also be conducted during development test, key site test, and during implementation (i.e. as needed throughout the life of the contract). Additional reviews will be on an as-needed basis throughout the life of the contract or when new hazards are identified.
Seven (7) safety reviews are estimated; some incorporated with other types of reviews.
| 8 | SMR4 Section L - Instructions to Offerors Final | 10 | L.5.1 | Given that the proposal response period spans three Federal holidays, resource availability and internal approvals will be more challenging than they would otherwise, especially since vendor questions may not be answered until mid-December. Please consider extending the proposal due date by 21 calendar days. |
| No | Proposal due date was extended to February 21, 2025. Please refer to Amendment 1 of SIR Section L.5.1. | SIR Amendment 1 |
9 Attachment L-6 - Cost Price Workbook Final Section H - Special Contract Clauses Attachment J-18 - Disclosure of Data-Assertion and Identification (Assertions List) Given the extensive data rights requested in H.18 and the ability for vendors to provide detailed data rights assertions using Attachment J-18, please consider amending the L-6 Cost Price model to enable vendors to sepately price different levels of data rights. For example, it would be beneficial to the FAA and vendors if L-6 enabled vendors to explicitly define different data right levels (tied to their J-18 submission) with the associated costs for them. This would provide the FAA with visibility into the cost impact(s) of the requested data rights.
| No | The Government has considered your request. There is no change to Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook. Offerors may propose data rights cost as part of L.10.3.4.2 priced and unpriced Basis of Estimate (BOE). | ||||
| 10 | Attachment J-3 - SSD | Requirements [SMR4-SPEC-SR058] and [SMR4-SPEC-SR059] require both Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Precision Time Protocol (PTP). The IRD requirements only call out NTP in [SMR4-IRD086]. How does the FAA expect SMR4 to use PTP? | |||
| No | The PTP requirements in the SMR4 SSD are included for future use. The PTP requirements in the SMR SSD (SR058 and SR059) are to ensure the SMR4 is compatible with current and future planned FAA Time Sources. The SMR4 IRD requirement (IRD086) documents the current available time source from the ASDE-X/ASSC systems. | ||||
| 11 | SMR4 Section C - ASDE-3 SMR Replacement SOW Final | 3.6.3.1 | What is the duration of the support period for the Safety Review related work | No | Section C, 3.6.3.1 is for security as opposed to safety, and it is separate from Logistics. |
Ongoing security assessments are an annual process. The duration of the Security support is for the duration of the contract.
| 12 | Attachment J-3 - SSD | Pages 12-13 | SR073, SR074, SR075, SR087, SR089, SR091 | Requirements for the Waveguide Switch include remote control capability. Has the FAA considered the benefits of removing remote control in order to improve safety and decrease complexity? | No | If the proposed system has dual channel capabilities for redundancy, then there must be an automatic mechanism to fail between these channels (SR126) to ensure a critical system outage is not caused waiting for a Maintenance Technician to manual switch from the faulted channel. Similarly, the Maintenenance Technician must be able to select which channel is operating from a remote location. This is the intent of the "Channel Select" and similar commands. The documented behavior is required. |
| 13 | J-02 SMR4 Attachment - CDRLs and DIDs Matrix_ 2024-10-24 Final | SW01, SW02, SW08 | CDRLs SW01, SW02 and SW08 are listed as being costed under CLIN 0002, 1002, 2002. |
However, these CDRLs are aligned with SOW paragraph 3.6.6.
SOW paragraph 3.6.6 is aligned with CLIN 0003
Can the FAA confirm CDRLs SW01, SW02 and SW03 should be costed under CLIN 0003? No The Government confirms that CDRLs SW01, SW02, SW03, and SW08 should be costed under CLIN 0003.
In the CDRLs Matrix, SW03 is assigned correctly.
Attachment J-02 is amended to update the CLIN numbers for these CDRLs. Please refere to "J-02 SMR4 Attachment - CDRLs and DIDs Matrix_2024-10-24 Amendment 2".
| 14 | J-02 SMR4 Attachment - | |
| J-02 SMR4-DID-TD | 1 |
6 Data Item Descriptions SMR4-DID-TD01, SMR4-DID-TD02 and SMR4-DID-TD03 all refer to SMR4 General Documentation DID (SMR4-DID-GF).
Section J, Attachments J-02 does not include SMR4-DID-GF.
Can the FAA supply the Data Item Description SMR4-DID-GF No Attachment J-02 is amended to incorporate the SMR4-DID-GF.
Please refer to SMR4-DID-GF Amendment 2.
15 SMR4 Attachment J-05 - SMR4 Site List_2024-08-26 Can the FAA Confirm the "key sites" are Houston and Cleveland with 2 and 1 systems respectively No At this time, the Government anticipates to install at an ASDE-X dual SMR site and an ASSC site as key sites. The key sites will be determined at Contract Award or at Order issuance.
Please refer to Section F.5 Site Deployment Priorities and Designation of Delivery Points.
Please refer to Section F Amendment 2.
| 16 | H | H-18 | H.27 | Would FAA consider removal of the materials (i.e., the radar and spares) from the calculation for achieving the small business subcontracting goal for this contract, as there are no small businesses that produce surface movement radars. |
| No | Per SIR Section M.12.1 this solicitation does not establish minimum goals for an acceptable small business subcontracting plan. This solicitation reflects objectives the Government encourages contractors to adopt. Offerors shall make every attempt to meet specified goals, unless the resulting awardee can substantiate reasons the goals are unattainable. The Government's subcontracting goals are stated in terms of the percentage of the total planned subcontracting dollars. | |||
| 17 | H and L | H-18 and L-31 | H.27; L.11.1 | Confirm that meeting the 15% SB goal, the 5% WOSB goal and the 5% VOSB goal (i.e., 25% SB set aside) will meet the threshold for a minimum acceptable SB plan, meets small business goals for FAA published (https://sbo.faa.gov/GoalsDisplayDetails.cfm) and that have been utilized in contracts such as EPICS, ATEPS and others. |
| No | An acceptable small business subcontracting plan will be assessed based upon the requirements set forth in clause 3.6.1-4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Per SIR Section M.12.1 this solicitation does not establish minimum goals for an acceptable small business subcontracting plan. This solicitation reflects objectives the Government encourages contractors to adopt. Offerors shall make every attempt to meet specified goals, unless the resulting awardee can substantiate reasons the goals are unattainable. | |||
| 18 | H | H-18 | H.27 | Confirm that 8(a) companies will be acceptable as “Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business (SDB)” for meeting the 15% SDB Goal. |
| No | Criteria for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) status is set forth on the Small Business Administration’s website: Small Disadvantaged Business | U.S. Small Business Administration. Vendors are responsible for ensuring their SAM.GOV representations and certifications reflect all certifications to include self-certifications. | |||
| 19 | H | H-18 | H.27 | Confirm that use of 2nd tier subcontractors, i.e., local small business, to support installation, logistics and other activities at each proposed SMR location accrues towards the small business set-aside goal. |
| No | Per the subcontracting plan clause: Subcontract award data reported by prime Contractors and subcontractors must be limited to awards made to their immediate next-tier subcontractors. Credit cannot be taken for awards made to lower tier subcontractors, unless the Contractor or subcontractor has been designated to receive a small business or small disadvantaged business credit from an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) or Indian tribe. | |||
| 20 | H and I | H-15 & I-1 | H.21 & I.2 | Section I.2 states the contractor needs a “Certified EVMS” System, whereas Section H.21 states: |
The Contractor may use a cost/schedule control system that has been recognized by the CO as:
1) Complying with the earned value management system criteria provided in FAA Earned Value Management Guide, dated February 2006, or
2) Conforming with the full intentions of the guidelines presented in ANSI/EIA Standard 748B, Industry Guidelines for Earned Value Management Systems.
Can the Government confirm which instruction is priority in section H within 90 days after award or section I?
No Section H.21 is amended to state:
1) FAA EVM Guide is dated July 2016
Per H.21 EIA-748 compliant system is to be implemented within 90 days.
| Please refer to Section H.21 Amendment 2 | ||||
| 21 | L and Attachment L-6 | L-10 and Attachment L-6 | L-10 & Attachment L-6 | We recommend the Government provide a template for Offerors to complete all detailed cost price requirements contained in Section L to include a roll-up of the PWS detail into the Summary by CLINs. This will ensure that all offerors will provide a standardized buildup of pricing, this will allow for consistent evaluation of all offers. If the Government will not provide, we recommend adding tabs to the CLIN price summary attachment L-6. |
| No | The Government has considered your request and determined that creation of a template is not necessary. There is no change to Attachment L-6 Cost Price Workbook. Offerors must provide pricing as part of L.10.3.4.2 priced Basis of Estimate (BOE). | |||
| 22 | E | E-5 | E-5 | The Government states that final acceptance will be in accordance with CDRLS and acceptance by COR; however, x001 is Program Management and as such there are multiple iterations of CDRLS, monthly PMR and IPR events. Is this planned to be invoiced on a monthly basis for this FFP CLIN? |
| No |
FFP CLINs are payable on a monthly basis. Please refer to Section G.9 a. Payment Request and Method of Payment.
| 23 | F | F-5 | Section F.4.2 | Recommend the Government completes the due dates in Section F.4.2 on a rolling basis after award of the base period and each option period, to allow for changes based on review cycles, changes to logistics, federal and contractor staff availability, and other shifts that may arise over performance of a 14 year long contract. |
| No | The Government will complete table in Section F.4.2 at contract award or at order issuance. | Please refer to Section F Amendment 2, F.4.2. | ||
| 24 | Attachment J-15 | 6 | 1.3 | Can the FAA provide the correct link to the IBR guidance document, as the link provided does not work? |
| No | https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/divisions/ipmd/2023--files/ndia_ipmd_ibr_guide_rev_4_jan1123.pdf?download=1 | |||
| 25 | L | L-9/L-10 | L.4.11 and L.4.12 and L.5.2.2 | Recommend that FAA allow documents to be emailed directly to the FAA for review and evaluation versus utilizing RunAcquisition, a tool developed by a third party competitor. We request FAA confirm that if RunAcquisition is to be utilized, it confirms that all documentation, records, pricing, and any data proprietary or otherwise be deleted and removed from RunAcquisition and other Noblis systems as they are a competitor in the FAA and other civilian government market space. We request FAA confirm any data or documents provided to other third party evaluators also be deleted and/or removed from third party systems as firms identified in Section L.4.11 are all competitors. |
| No | Noblis has confirmed they will remove data once the Government notifies them to remove the documents. Proposals must be submitted through RunAcquisition tool. |
| 26 | L | L-14 | L.6.4 - Table 2 | We recommend the Government increase page count for Volume III - Past Performance to allow 9 pages per team member or a minimum of 3 pages per past performance for a combined 30. This allows offerors the ability to address all PWS or SOW areas. |
| No | Section L is amended to increase the page limit for Volume III - Past Performance to allow for a combined 30 pages. |
Please refer to SIR Section L Amendment 2.
| 27 | L | L-22 | L.9.1 | Please confirm offerors can utilize tables to show Past Performance references in their selected format as long as it contains all details called out in L.9.1. |
| No | Past performance must be provided in the format requested. | |||
| 28 | L | L-21 | L.8.5.1 | Section L states that the contractor schedule shall include the critical path and interdependencies for procurements, system engineering, software development, systems integration, logistics, test, implementation, check out and acceptance, production and training. Is it the Government's intent to include all deliveries for all option periods for the duration of the contract, or the initial base period? |
| No | It is the Government's intent to include all deliveries for all periods: base and option periods for the duration of the contract. | |||
| 29 | L | L-21 | L.8.5.1 | Should the proposed schedule include the delivery timeline and training activities for all four production systems, including the maximum CLIN quantities during the Base Period? |
| No | The proposed schedule should include the delivery and timeline for all seven first article systems including the training activities for the Base Period. | |||
| 30 | L | L-21 | L.8.5.1 | Should the proposed schedule include delivery and implementation timelines for the maximum quantity of 27 production systems during Option Period 1, with activities sequenced according to the Government's priority location list? If not, should we only include the minimum quantity of 8 systems in our schedule? |
| No |
The Government's intent for Option Period 1 is for Offerors to propose to replace all 27 SMR3s (max quantity) with the new SMR4s. The use of the min/max qty is to allow ordering flexibility to the Government.
The IMS must include timelines according to Section F, paragraph 4.1 through 4.3.
| 31 | B | B-13 | B.7.1.3 | Based on the timeline provided in Section B.4, Option Period 2 could commence up to 9 years after contract award and requires firm-fixed prices for several CLINs. Due to the substantial cost/price uncertainties associated with the duration of time between proposal submittal and execution of Option Period 2 (potentially a decade), offerors will need to factor in a contingency allocation to cover unforeseen and unknowable cost fluctuations. To ensure the Government receives the most advantageous pricing for these products and services, we recommend removing Option Period 2 from the initial contract award and soliciting a separate task order under this ID/IQ for the desired products and services closer to anticipated execution date. |
| No | The Government has considered the Offeror's request. The Government has a requirement for Option Period 1 and 2 pricing. There is no change to the SIR. | |||
| 32 | Attachment J-06 | 5 | Section 3.2 | Clarify that the work identified as being performed by Engineering Services in section 3.2 of Attachment J-06 (e.g., remove SMR cables, complete site preparation and other) is to be performed by the contractor in accordance with section C.3.10.4 and should be included in pricing developed by the contractor. |
| No | The Government's intent is to use FAA Engineering Services, however in case ES cannot meet project schedule, there will be flexibility for the contractor to perform this work as long as it is included within the scope of the Section C - Scope of Work. This tasking itself is currently unknown, and it does not need to be priced. | |||
| 33 | Attachment J-06 | 6 | Section 3.4 | Clarify that the work identified as being performed by the Project Implementer (i.e., Program Office and Engineering Services) in Section 3.4 of attachment J-06 (e.g., Site Survey) is actually to be performed by the contractor in accordance with section C.3.10, Site Survey, and should be included in pricing developed by the contractor. |
| No | The Offeror must price all SOW requirements. | |||
| 34 | C | C-77 | 3.10.4.2 | Confirm the government will remove, ship and disposal of all legacy SMR equipment per Section C.3.10.4.2 and that the contractor should not include any pricing for the removal, shipment, or disposal of such equipment. |
| No | The Government will remove, ship and dispose of all legacy SMR equipment per Section C.3.10.4.2 and the Offeror should not include any pricing for the removal, shipment, or disposal of such equipment. | |||
| 35 | Attachment J-06 | 8 | Section 7 | Please provide a copy of the signed SRMD signed September 27, 2022. |
| No | The Government will not provide a copy of the SRMD. The critical information from the SRMD is already included in the SIR. | |||
| 36 | C and Attachment J-06 | All | Section C and Attachment J-06 | Confirm that the scope of work in Section C (e.g., C.3.10, Site Survey, C.3.10.4, and others), takes precedent over scope-related activities outlined in attachments, such as Attachment J-06 (e.g., Section 3.2 and 3.4), and that the contractor, not FAA Engineering Services, Program Office or other organizations are responsible for executing the scope in Section C. Confirm that activities assigned to FAA organizations such as Program Office and Engineering Services in the attachments, that are assigned to the contractor in the scope, should be priced by the contractor as part of their responsibilities. |
| No | The Government's intent is to use FAA Engineering Services, however in case ES cannot meet project schedule, there will be flexibility for the contractor to perform the work under Section C - Statement of Work (SOW). This tasking itself is currently unknown, and it does not need to be priced. |
Please refer to Section C, Amendment 2 - 3.10.4.
| 37 | Attachment J-11 | 3 | Section 3.4.1 | Confirm the replacement POC for Mr. Bill Kaplan, who has retired. |
| No | Attachment J-11 is a current active document, dated 2/1/2024. The requested information is not necessary for the proposal purposes. |
| 38 | L | L-34 | L.11.2.6 C | Please provide the specified amount for the following requirement: "Proof of the Offeror’s ability to cover at least $[X.X]M of payroll and other operating and administrative expenses to accommodate FAA “in arrears” payments for work performed for periods up to 90 days?" |
| No | See SIR L.11.2.6 and M.13. This response is to be provided in the SIR by the Offeror. "The Offeror is to include the payroll and other operating and administrative expenses into the prior sentence, and to present, along with supporting documentation, as part of the subject volume." | |||
| 39 | C and F | C-14 | 3.1.1 | As the deliverables spelled out in Section F do not have due dates, confirm that the IMS to be delivered is notional, and should be updated on award of the contract and population of Section F by the Government. |
| No | IMS received from the Offerors is notional. The Government will complete table in Section F.4.2 at contract award or at Order Issuance. |
Please refer to SIR Section F.4.2 Amendment 2.
| 40 | C | C-15 | 3.1.2 | Please provide correct POC for "validating" the EVMS. |
| No | The Government will designate an EVMS Focal Point, per H.21 (c)..1 EVMS Guide. |
See https://fast.faa.gov/EMP_Earned_Value_Management.cfm The requested information is not necessary for the proposal purposes. For more information regarding FAA's EVMS practices, please refer to the EVMS Guide.
| 41 | C | C-12 | 2.2 | Confirm that version D of 3900.19 is the current version of this standard that should be used during performance of work under this contract. |
| No | SIR Sections C and D are amended to update FAA Order 3900.19D published February 2024. | Please refer to Section C and D, Amendments 2. | ||
| 42 | C | C-12 | 2.2 | Confirm that version A of 3900.67 is the current version of this standard that should be used during performance of work under this contract. |
| No | SIR Section C is amended to update FAA Order 3900.67A published October 2023. | Please refer to Section C, Amendment 2. | ||
| 43 | C | C-12 | 2.2 | Confirm that version A of 3900.57B is the current version of this standard that should be used during performance of work under this contract. |
| No | FAA Order JO 3900.57A, Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health (EOSH) Requirements in the Planning and Execution of Construction and Maintenance Activities at National Airspace System (NAS) Facilities, is the current active version of this document. | |||
| 44 | C | C-12 | 2.2 | Confirm that version A of 3000.22C is the current version of this standard that should be used during performance of work under this contract. |
| No | SIR Section C is amended to update FAA Order 3000.22C published June 2024. | Please refer to Section C Amendment 2. | ||
| 45 | C | C-12 | 2.2 | Confirm that version A of 6000.30G is the current version of this standard that should be used during performance of work under this contract. |
| No | SIR Section C is amended to update FAA Order 6000.30G published September 2022. | Please refer to Section C Amendment 2. | ||
| 46 | M | M-12 | 11 Factor 4 Cost | Government states, "With respect to T&M rates, the FAA will evaluate the proposed fully burdened labor rates for reasonableness but will not include the fully burdened labor rates in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)," but Attachment L-6 contains NTE T&M CLINs that appear to factor into the TEP calculation. Could the Government please clarify the evaluation methodology for T&M rates? |
| No | Please see SIR Section M.11 is amended to delete the following language “but will not include the fully burdened labor rates” in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). | Please refer to Section M, M.11, Amendment 2. | ||
| 47 | B | B-7 | B-7 | Government provides a min and max quantity to be ordered for several FFP CLINS, to include CLIN 1015 & 2015 Production Systems. Given that unit prices are typically dependent on the volume of units sold, there can be significant unit price differences based on varying quantities ordered. For Offerors to provide the most advantageous pricing to the Government, would the Government consider modifying the Min - Max structure w/ a unit price per qty range (1-3, 4-7, etc.) while including the unit price for the max qty in the evaluation model (to ensure consistent evaluation across all offers)? |
| No | The Government has considered your request and determined that change to Section B is not necessary. Offerors have the option to provide volume discounts as part of their proposal. |
| 48 | L | L-26 | 10.3.2.2 Part B | The level of cost detail requested in Section L 10.3.2.2 & L 10.3.2.3 generally does not apply to FFP and T&M CLINs in a competitive solicitation. We recommend the L 10.3.2.2 & L 10.3.2.3 requirements for detailed cost buildup (to include payroll reports and indirect rate details) are only applicable to the cost reimbursable CLINs. | |
| No | The Government has considered your request, and determined that change to Section L is not necessary. A detailed cost buildup is required for all CLINs in this acquisition as stated in Section L.10.3. | ||||
| 49 | B and C | B-5 and C-55 | CLIN 0007c and 3.8.5.2 | The SOW states in 3.8.5.2 the contractor must provide a list of Recommended Site Spares and Government reserves the right to modify the site spares list. The Government reserves the right to procure all, part, or none of the items, or procure them incrementally. This governmental reservation of partial funding does not align to the firm fixed price of the spares kits in CLIN 007c. Does the Government intend to change this CLIN to CPFF or change the language of the SOW to support the spares FFP CLIN structure? | |
| No | Section B and Attachment L-6 are amended to change CLIN type for CLINs X007c and X007d to CPFF. CLINs 1007c and 2007c are added. "Spares and Consumables" are deleted from FFP CLIN X0015 Production Systems. | Please refer to Section B Amendment 2, and Attachment L-06 Amendment 2. | |||
| 50 | C and Attachment J-02 | C-45 and | |||
| 3SR Replacement CDRLs List Worksheet | Attachment J-02 | The CDRL list did not include a CDRL for Spectrum Compliance. However there are two certification points for Spectrum. In SOW 3.6.5, "prepare the design data or electromagnetic compatibility studies required to obtain spectrum certification and provide them to the FAA Spectrum Engineering Services Office in accordance with FAA Order 6050.19G." Does the FAA require certification documentation be submitted? If so, please provide the CDRL. | |||
| No | A CDRL for Spectrum Compliance is not needed. Certification documentation is to be provided in Offeror format. | ||||
| 51 | B | B-4 | B.4 | What is the maximum number of sites planned for SMR implementation per year? That is a critical component of planning for draft schedule to allow for efficiencies in pricing and implementation teams. | |
| No | The Government's intent is to install a maximum of eight (8) sites per year. | ||||
| 52 | E | E-3 | E.2.2 | The assignment of a Quality Reliability Officer clause was included, however there is not a delegation of timing for the QRO within the SOW. Is it the Government's intent to have a full time QRO at each site implementation that would required a portable trailer to support this site inspection? E.2.2 "Preliminary acceptance by the QRO constitutes verification by the Government that supplies comply with all contract requirements which are to be completed prior to shipment, including satisfactory completion of factory tests." Since the radar system is not accepted at destination, there is a full site implementation activity followed by the site acceptance test, it does not appear that this clause will be enacted at any factory. | |
| No |
The assignment of a QRO will be at the award of the contract. It is the intent of the Government to have a fulltime QRO at each site implementation, this will usually be for the site testing, inspection and acceptance. A portable trailer is not needed for site activities.
The SIR Section E.2.2. clause is anticipated to be enacted at the contractor's factory to oversee and monitor the Quality Management program and also to be involved with production and any production testing that will be happening at the factory. When the QRO is at the contractor's factory, the requirement to provide an office for them as noted in AMS clause 3.10.4-14 will be required.
| 53 | I | I-1 | 1.13-5 | Section I states in the IMS clause that the IMS should be submitted with the "(IPMR) DID DI-MGMT-81861 Format 6". However that DID has been replaced with DI‐MGMT‐81861B. The component of this report referenced within this CDRL is format 6, "a snapshot of the schedule/IMS data (IPMR Format 6)," which means all other components of the format are not required. Please confirm the only portion of the IPMR is the snapshot of the schedule for submission. |
| No | The Government confirms that the Offerors should use DI‐MGMT‐81861 Format 6 as specified in Section I. | |||
| 54 | B and Attachment J-05 | B-3 and Attachment J-05 | B.1 and Attachment J-05 | Attachment J-05 states that there are 34 production systems and Sec B states that there are 27 production systems in Option 1. Will the FAA please advise how many production systems there are? |
| No | Attachment J-05, 'Quantity' (column D, row 37) shows total systems of thirty-four (34). Thirty-four (34) systems includes seven (7) First Article Systems in the Base Period, and twenty-seven (27) production systmes in Option Period 1. |
| 55 | B, C and Attachment J-06 | B-3, C-74 Attachment J-06 - page 3 | B.1, C.3.10 Attachment J-06 - Section 1 | GSIP, Section B, and SOW are inconsistent in Radar install timing. e.g. GSIP lists 7 radars for the base period and Section B indicates base period covers first system only, the SOW requires staffing up for 8 radars per year. Will the FAA please provide clarification on system requirements for installation timing? |
| No | Section B, CLIN 0006, identifies seven (7) SMR First Article Systems. |
Section B is consistent with Section C.3.9.1 and C.3.10 and Attachment J-06 GSIP.
Please refer to Note on the first page of GSIP: The Section C - Statement of Work (SOW) will take precedence in the case of any conflict.
| 56 | Attachment J-06 | 5 | 3.2 | The GSIP states that FAA engineering services (ES) will provide structural analysis of the towers where the SMR4 is to be placed. This seems to conflict with the SOW which requires the Contractor to perform seismic analysis. Does this mean the Contractor is not responsible for any structural analysis? |
| No | The Generic Site Implementation Plan (GSIP) (Attachment J-6) is provided to the Contractor for Site Survey and Site Engineering Report (SER) Contract Data Requirements List IM02 (CDRL IM02) planning and development purposes. |
Offerors are responsible for the products they deliver and the work they perform including structural analysis of their product. Offerors must meet requirements specified in Section C, Statement of Work (SOW), Section 3.4.2, Seismic Requirements.
| 57 | Attachment J-06 | 5 | 3.5 | The GSIP states that FAA National Airway System Engineering (NASE) will provide system's adaptations setting to site specific conditions, and conduct vehicle test runs in the AOA. Does the Contractor need to provide support for these efforts, and if so, to what degree? |
| No | Reference Section C - Statement of Work (SOW), Section 3.5.4.3. |
When requested, the Contractor must support the Government’s optimization and integration activities by providing SMR4 analysis and optimization. This may require being on site or readily available for the entirety of system optimization.
Please refer to Note on the first page of Attachment J-06.
| 58 | C and Attachment J-06 | C-77 and Attachment J-06 - page 5 | 3.10.4.2 and Attachment J-06 - section 3.2 | GSIP states that FAA will remove the existing SMR cables. The SOW (3.10.4.2) states that FAA will remove all old equipment. Is the Contractor responsible for disassembling equipment and connections and turning them over to the Government for disposition? |
| No | The Government will disassemble and remove all legacy equipment. |
Please refer to Note on the first page of Attachment J-06.
Please refer to Section C Amendment 2, change to SOW C.3.10.4.2.
| 59 | C and Attachment J-06 | C-51 and Attachment J-06 - Page 7 | 3.8.1 and Attachment J-06 - Section 4 | The GSIP states that the FAA PO will provide interim logistics support. This seems to conflict with the SOW 3.8.1 that states, "The Contractor must establish and maintain an ILS organization to ensure the SMR4 is fully supported for the period of performance of the contract." Will the FAA please provide clarification on the intended period of logistics support? |
| No | The Contractor must maintain an ILS organization for the entire period of performance. |
For comissioned sites only, the Government intends to transition depot logistics support from the Contractor to the Government during Option Period 1.
Please refer to Note on the first page of Attachment J-06.
| 60 | L | L.6.2 | General | There is no indication in the SIR as to what electronic document delivery format is required for installation design documents. Does the Government want only AutoCAD, Revit, or other BIM, or all of the above? |
| No | Per the DID for CDRL IM03 and FAA Order 6000.55C, "The preferred vector file format for engineering drawings from outside sources is MicroStation (.DGN). The other acceptable vector format for engineering drawings from outside sources is AutoCAD drawing format (.DWG)". | |||
| 61 | C | C-77 | 3.10.4.1 | SOW C.3.10.4.1 states that the Contractor will be escorted at the facility by an FAA ES person (RE). This restricts the Contactor's ability to perform the work efficiently when work is needed in multiple areas of the facility or require multiple FAA escorts. Would the FAA consider Contractor badging? |
| No | The Government has considered this request. FAA Engineering Services will escort Contractor personnel. | |||
| 62 | C | C-76 and C-77 | 3.10.3 | Implementation design deliverables are identified as 60%, 90%, 100%. The content of these deliverables are not defined as to the required content. This will lead to variations in interpretation by the various PIs and other reviewers. Will the FAA provide a detailed definition of the content of each of these deliverables? |
| No | Content is described in 60%/90%/100% Construction Drawings (CDRL IM03), Section 10, Preparation Instructions, and Section C - Statement of Work (SOW), Section 3.10.3. | |||
| 63 | C and Attachment J-06 | C-78 and Attachment J-06 - Page 8 | 3.10.4.4 & Attachment J-06 - Section 6.1 | GSIP states that FAA ES will provide lifts, cranes, etc. for the removal and installation of new radar equipment on towers. SMR4 Section C 3.10.4.4 states the Contractor must provide all labor, tools, hardware, software, parts, and materials for the installation of the SMR4. Which is correct? |
| No | The Government will provide lifts, cranes, and equipment operators for the installation of the SMR4. Contractor will provide all other labor, tools, hardware, software, parts, and materials for the installation of the SMR4. Additionally, Contractor is responsible for properly rigging SMR4 equipment prior to lift. |
Please refer to Note on the first page of Attachment J-06.
| 64 | Attachment J-06 | Attachment J-06 - Page 8 | Attachment J-06 - Section 6.1 | GSIP Section 6.1 states that the FAA will perform FAA Form 7460 coordination. Will the FAA please confirm that since the FAA ES is doing the crane work that the Contractor will only need to provide the information to the FAA as to what height and lifting capacity of crane is required? |
| No | The Contractor will need to provide the information to the Government as to what height and lifting capacity of crane is required. Contractor will provide all other labor, tools, hardware, software, parts, and materials for the installation of the SMR4. Additionally, Contractor is responsible for properly rigging SMR4 equipment prior to lift. |
Please refer to Note on the first page of Attachment J-06.
| 65 | Attachment J-10 | 2 | Quality Assurance Manager | The Quality Assurance Manager position requires a bachelors degree and 10 years of experience, "three of which shall be within the last five years in quality management, configuration management, verification and validation, system testing and integration, system metrics." Typically in a quality role, additional years of experience (YOE) can be offset for the bachelors degree, will the Government review to support additional YOE for 14 years in lieu of a bachelors degree, with 6 of those years in quality management, configuration management, verification and validation? |
| No | The Government has reviewed Years of Experience (YOE) in lieu of a bachelor's degree as it relates to the Quality Assurance Manager key personnel position. In lieu of bachelor's degree, Attachment J-10 is amended to substitute 15 years of relevant experience in mentioned related fields with 6 years of experience in quality assurance management. |
Please refer to Attachment J-10, Amendment 2.
| 66 | C | C-41 | 3.6.1 | The SOW stated that the contract must execute requirement management process, in accordance with the SEMP, to ensure traceability. However, in the prior section the CDRL is PM01, Program Management Plan. Is it the Government's intent that there be a subsection within the PMP that is SEMP? |
| No | The Government confirms that the SEMP is to be delivered as part of PM01 Program Management Plan. Please refer to Section C, paragraph 3.6 and Attachment J-02-SMR4-DID-PM, PM01. | |||
| 67 | L | L-12 | L.6.2.1.7 | Foldouts are permitted in Volumes I, III and IV. We recommend the Government allow foldouts for Volume II - Management as well. |
| No | The Government will accept foldouts for Volume II - Management. The Government herewith amends Section L.6.2.1.7. | Please refer to Section L, Amendment 2. | ||
| 68 | J-04, J-07 | J-04 Pages 5, 15 | SMR4-IRD001, SMR4-IRD002, SMR4-IRD003, SMR4-IRD055, SMR4-IRD057 | SMR4-IRD055 and SMR4-IRD057 contradict the use of ASTERIX Category 010, 240, and 253 as specified in SMR4-IRD001, IRD0002, and IRD003. Since ASTERIX Records are not wrapped in CRC-32 frames, will the Government explain how the SMR4 will maintain compliance with the EUROCONTROL specifications? |
| No | The ASTERIX message is compliant with the EURCONTROL specification. The EUROCONTROL Specification details the minimum requirements at the Application level. | |||
| 69 | J-04, J-07 | J-04 Page 6 | SMR4-IRD008 | To avoid unnecessary traffic and load on the network, will the Government confirm multicast is acceptable? |
| No | The Government confirms multicast is acceptable. Atachment J-04 is amended to update Table 3-2 to indicate broadcast or multicast options. | Please refer to Attachment J-04, Amendment 2. |
70 J-04, J-07 J-04 Page 9 SMR4-IRD037 Since the SMR4 is required to be compliant with ASTERIX Category 240, will the Government consider the use of the high-definition video mandated by ASTERIX Category 240 acceptable, rather than degrading the resolution to Monobit video?
If Monobit resolution is the only acceptable resolution, will the Government confirm that the backend SSS supports the defining of video display thresholds and making the paints appear as Monobit resolution?
No High resolution video is not acceptable for the Government. Monobit Video is a seperate data feed for use at the display processor. The Government does not require the vendor to use Monobit Video for target detection or processing.
The backend SSS does not support defining the video threshholds. The input to the SSS is required to be Monobit Video.
| 71 | J-04, J-07 | J-04 Page 17 | SMR4-IRD068, IRD069, IRD070, IRD071, IRD072, IRD073 | Since SMR4-IRD068 through SMR4-IRD073 (inclusive) do not coincide with the use of ASTERIX Category 010, 240, and 253 as specified in SMR4-IRD001, IRD002, and IRD003, will the Government explain how the SMR4 is to maintain compliance with the EUROCONTROL specifications? |
| No |
The ASTERIX message is compliant with the EURCONTROL specification. The EUROCONTROL Specification details the minimum requirements at the Application level.
| 72 | J-04, J-07 | J-04 Page 18 | SMR4-IRD086 | Will the Government explain the reason for the mismatch in time synchronization protocols between SMR4 and SSS? Is NTP acceptable for SMR4, as it is in SSS? |
| No |
IRD086 requires NTP from the SSS system which is the current SSS timing protocol.
In accordance with SR058 and SR059 the SMR4 must support both NTP and PTP.
| 73 | J-03, J-04, J-07 | J-03 Page 34, J-04 Page 19 | SMR4-IRD108, SMR4-SPEC-SR363, SR364 | There are contradictory electromagnetic radiation and susceptibility requirements listed (e.g., 47 CFR Part 15, 47 CFR Part 300, and MIL-STD-461G) across SMR4-IRD108, SMR4-SPEC-SR363, and SMR4-SPEC-SR364. For the SMR4, will the Government accept compliance to MIL-STD-461G for all electromagnetic and susceptibility requirements? |
| No |
The Government will not accept MIL-STD-461G for all electromagnetic and susceptibility requirements.
SMR4-IRD108 corresponds to SMR4-SPEC-SR365. The Government will remove SMR4-IRD108. Please refer to Attachment J-04 and J-07, Amendments 2.
74 J-03, J-07 J-03 Pages 7, 23 SMR4-SPEC-SR001, SR238, SR239, SR240, SR241, SR242 SR001 defines the coverage area as both in the “Airport Movement Area” AND within the “Coverage Volume”. Will the Government clarify if the term “Airport Movement Area” includes or excludes the extended coverage volume? The Runway Safety Area as defined includes infield areas with grass. Should the SMR4 exclude non-paved areas?
No 1) The Airport Movement Area includes the Extended Coverage Volume where they intersect.
2) The SMR4 may include non-paved areas as determined during optimization.
Attachment J-03 is amended to update the SMR4 definition of Runway Safety Area:
"The Runway Safety Area includes any runway surface and any part of the Airport Movement Area that is within 500 feet of any runway edge."
Please refer to Attachment J-03, Amendment 2.
| 75 | J-03 | J-03 Pages 8, 18 | SMR4-SPEC-SR017, SR163 | Will the Government clarify the relationship between SR017 and SR163? |
| No | SR017 allows for alternative methods of preventing ice build-up on the antenna. SR163 requires a heated array to be deployed at FAA designated airports. |
| 76 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Page 8 | SMR4-SPEC-SR023 | To ensure there are no contradictions in the SSD requirements, will the Government confirm the transmitter is not permitted to switch off transmission in the narrow sectors directed at the airport movement area(s)? |
| No | The Transmitter Blanking function must disable transmissions in the wedges where they are implemented. | |||
| 77 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Page 10, J-04 Page 31 | SMR4-SPEC-SR044, SMR4-IRD049 | The Monobit Video data output requirement conflicts with the SMR4 target range separation requirements and contradicts the adaptable plot extraction threshold requirements. Will the Government provide the rationale behind the inclusion of the Monobit Video data output requirement, acknowledging degradation of overall system performance? When system performance is degraded when outputting to Monobit Video, how shall the Government interpret compliance to the conflicting requirements? |
| No |
1) The Government expects the system to perform according to the requirements in SMR4 Attachment J-03 - SMR4 SSD Draft. For Monobit Video requirements refer to SMR4-IRD037 and SMR4-SPEC-SR049.
2) There are no conflicting requirements. SR049 requires Monobit Video output and has no impact on performance requirements.
| 78 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Page 11 | SMR4-SPEC-SR059 | SMR4-SPEC-SR059 and SMR-SPEC-SR266 contradict: One requires the timestamp of all messages with an accuracy of less than or equal to 10 milliseconds. The other specifies the use of PTP which may result in µs or ns accuracy. Does the SSS uses µs (microsecond) or ns (nanosecond) timestamp accuracies? If yes, which specification, noted above, takes precedence based on the current SSS? |
| No |
1) The SSS timestamp accuracy is not relevant to the SMR4.
2) Neither requirement takes precedent. Requirement applies as specified.
| 79 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Page 13 | SMR4-SPEC-SR086 | If the situation causing a fault or warning persists when a “Clear Fault” command is given (before and after), should the SMR4 allow persisting errors and warnings to be cleared? If so, how should persistent errors be reported upon receipt of the original and subsequent “Clear Fault” commands? Can the Government confirm a user can choose to “Clear Fault” and remove acknowledgement of the fault or warning while the fault or warning persists? |
| No |
1) A clear fault command is only required to clear the fault indication. The systems actual determination of a fault is not being cleared.
2) For persistent faults, the fault indication should immediately revert to faulted.
3) Only the fault indication is cleared which should be momentary for a persistent fault and depends on the vendors design.
| 80 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Page 23 | SMR4-SPEC-SR238 and SR241 | Will the Government confirm that the radar shall operate in the same mode all the time regardless of environmental conditions? |
| No |
There are no environmental conditions associated with SMR4-SPEC-SR238 and SMR4-SPEC-SR241.
| 81 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Pages 24 | SMR4-SPEC-SR248 | Monobit video causes echoes to merge when painting two dissimilar sized objects, preventing the user from distinguishing between multiple objects, in conflict with SRM4-SPEC-SR248. Will the Government define how to resolve the conflict between the Monobit video requirement with SR248? Can the Government describe the operational objective of SMR4-SPEC-SR248 to detect dissimilar targets given the distance specified is less than the physical extension of commercial aircraft (215 ft)? |
| No |
1) There is no conflict. There is no requirement to use Monobit Video for data processing.
2) SMR4-SPEC-SR248 is the minimum performance for detecting dissimilar targets.
| 82 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Pages 24 | SMR4-SPEC-SR254 | Transient conditions and unique maintenance practices at each airport may drive snow/ice buildup and grass growth to generate static clutter and a false track. Will the Government confirm that snow/ice buildup and grass generating static clutter will be excluded from the FALSE TRACK rate requirement? |
| No |
The Government expects that the vendors product includes methods of eliminating static clutter including snow/ice buildup and grass.
Snow/ice buildup and grass generating static clutter will be reviewed during the analysis of test results.
| 83 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Pages 25, 53 | SMR4-SPEC-SR268 | The Runway Safety Area is defined as extending to 500 ft from the runway edge. Because this definition drives SMR4 coverage into infield grass areas, what is the operational objective of object detection in infield grass areas? Should the Runway Safety Area include only paved areas? |
| No |
1) Refer to the updated Runway Safety Area Definition for SMR4.
2) The SMR4 may include non-paved areas as determined during optimization.
Attachment J-03 is amended to update the SMR4 definition of Runway Safety Area:
"The Runway Safety Area includes any runway surface and any part of the Airport Movement Area that is within 500 feet of any runway edge." Please refer to Attachment J-03, Amendment 2.
| 84 | J-03, J-07 | J-03 Pages 28 | SMR4-SPEC-SR292 | Wind speeds and peak gusts have differing intensities, time durations, and resultant impacts. Will the Government consider an SMR4 operating in 100 mph wind gusts and operating in 90 mph constant wind speed as acceptable? |
| No |
The Government requirement is as stated in SMR4-SPEC-SR292.
| 85 | J-03, J-05, J-07 | J-03 Pages 29, 30 | SMR4-SPEC- SR291, SR301 | At 5,431 ft, DEN is the highest airport location on the SMR4 site list (Attachment J-05). Considering the operational characteristics of airports for potential future SMR4 installations, will the Government reduce the maximum altitude for SMR4 equipment to 6,500 ft? |
| No |
The Government requirement is as stated in SMR4-SPEC-SR291 and SR301, respectively.
86 Section B Section C Attachment L-6 Pages B-6 through B-8 (inclusive) Pages C-56-C57
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .