USCG_Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z023-18-R-2DAU04
View the file
Other files
Show all 39
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
Sheet1
| # | Document Name | Specific Page | Paragraph or Clause | Issue | Request | USCG Response |
| 1 | General | The Final RFP includes substantial changes (technical and programatic) when compared to the Draft RFP release for inductry comment 28 March 2017. The alotted 30 day timeline does not provide the contract sufficient time to adjust to these changes and see the requisit internal approvals. | Please consider increasing the response time to 45 days. | The USCG requirement for 30 days is necessary to keep installation schedule requirements. USCG is driving towards an aggressive 31 March 2018 award (+ or - afew days). This is an assumption that all vendors must utilize. | ||
| 2 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1 | Performance Objectives: Communications relay | Clarification is needed to ensure the correct communications relay capability is provided. |
The SOO states:
| - TOI. Communications exchange between host cutter and TOI may be relayed through the Unmanned Aircraft (UA). The SPS does not define this functional requirement. | Please clarify the required concept of operations for the communications exchange between the host cutter and target of interest for each of the frequency spectrum bands identified in the SPS. | ||||
| The USCG CONOP is to provide a communications relay avenue from the host cutter through the UAS on standard frequencies already defined in the SPS J-2-8 (Sensor, Communications, Navigation and Identification Systems (CNI) Requirements) to a third entity (ie., USCG Asset, TOI, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, etc) | |||||
| 3 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1 | Performance Objectives: Communications relay | Clarification is needed to ensure the correct communications relay capability is provided. |
The SOO states:
- The sUAS ...will relay communications between units. The SPS does not define this functional requirement. Please clarify the required concept of operations for communications exchange between units for each of the frequency spectrum bands identified in the SPS.
| Is the SOO Objective for unit to unit relay communications specifying that the UA is to autonomously relay communications between on-scene units, or is a manual or automatic store and forward communications relay acceptable? | Manual or automatic is acceptable. The USCG Objective is to perform this automatically | ||||
| 4 | Attachment J-2 SPS | page 6 | Communications: Communications relay | Clarification is needed to ensure the correct communications relay capability is provided. |
The SPS states:
| From the GCS position, external voice communications shall be provided by the NSC’s radios and UA radio relay. Voice communication radios shall not be integrated into the GCS. | For the purposes of host ship to TOI communications, is it acceptable to transmit vioce communications though the UAV data links to the UA communications relay? | Yes | |||
| 5 | Attachment J-2 SPS | page 8 | Communications Spectrum: Communcations relay | Clarification is needed to ensure the correct communications relay capability is provided. |
The SPS states:
| Frequency: The UA shall provide secure and non-secure radio relay on VHF-AM (118-136 Mhz), VHF-FM (155-162.55 MHz) and military UHF (225-400 MHz) frequency bands. | An existing communications "bent-pipe" type relay package provides the capability to receive on 335.5 - 370.5 MHz and will transmit on 225-262 MHz. Does this capability fulfill the USCG requirement to relay unit to unit communications? | Communications relay should be capable of operating and providing information across all frequencies listed in the SPS | |||
| 6 | Attachment J-2 SPS | page 8 | Communications Spectrum Filters | The SPS defines requirements for communications filters. |
Filter: The Contractor shall configure each radio with a bandpass filter sized to the limits of the frequency allocation (a given band set by area frequency coordinators).
The draft RFP did not include filter requirements. When will the requirements that define the frequency allocation filter limits be communicated to the contractor? Filter lead time can require 8-12 week ARO.
| How often does the government anticipate filter requirements to change? | The USCG doesn't anticipate changing spectrum requirements once assigned by the NTIA, FCC, and will be relayed to the Offeror upon receipt. NTIA usually provide at least 6 months lead time for any spectrum auctions that affect spectrum currently allocated. Spectrum frequencies will be assigned based on the type of aircraft transponder used during sUAS operations | ||||||
| 7 | sUAS_for_NSC_RFP_Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank.xls | CLIN ALL PRICES KTR FILL (EVAL) | Assumptions for Option CLIN 0013 states "Assuming 3 NSCs x 3 100-day deployments per year". This implies 900 days in 2019, however the TEP shows only 300. | Should the assumption state "Assuming 3 NSCs x 1 100-day deployments per year"? | Assume that each of the 3 NSC's with an sUAS will deploy for 100 days each in 2019 for a total of 300 days. Offerors may correct in proposal response. Typo noted. | ||
| 8 | sUAS_for_NSC_RFP_Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank.xls | CLIN ALL PRICES KTR FILL (EVAL) | TEP analysis is based on 100 day deployments, however the RFP states that deployments will be ordered in 15 or 30 day increments, in which case the Coast Guard will not be able to order 100 days. | Please clarify if the TEP analysis should be based on 100 day increments. | For evaluation purposes, please assume 100 days. CLIN awards will be made to get as close to the necessary required operational days for each NSC deployment. Ie., a 100 day deployment would mean that the USCG would order 3-30 day deployments and 1-15 day CLIN | ||
| 9 | sUAS_for_NSC_RFP_Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank.xls | CLIN ALL PRICES KTR FILL (EVAL) | CLINs 0037 - 0045 are titled "UAS Mission Coordinator". The requirement in the SOO is for Training of six to nine Mission Coordinators per year, though it is unclear if the contractor is to provide Mission Coordinators as part of the COCO service. | Please clarify if CLINs 0037 - 0045 should be priced as training courses for Mission Coordinators, or priced as the contractor providing Mission Coordinators for deployment. | Training courses for mission coordinators should be priced for government personnel attendance. Government personnel will serve as the Mission Coordinators on all NSC deployments. | ||
| 10 | sUAS_for_NSC_RFP_Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank.xls | CLIN ALL PRICES KTR FILL (EVAL) | Section B of the RFP requires the contractor to price in units of 15 or 30 days, however the TEP analysis requires the contractor to fill in with hourly prices. | Please clarify if pricing is based on 15 and 30 day deployments, or based on a per sensor hour price. | For each 15-day period, the Offeror will be expected to provide 100 sensor hours. For each 30-day period, the Offeror will be expected to provide 200 sensor hours. Hourly prices are needed to understand how the 15/30 days are priced for fair and reasonableness determination as most UAS services contracts utilize this methodology. Delivery orders are ordered using the 15/30 days deployments (not hourly) for this USCG effort. | ||
| 11 | sUAS_for_NSC_RFP_Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank.xls | CLIN ALL PRICES KTR FILL (EVAL) | Section B of the RFP says that "This is an Base and Seven (7) single option years IDIQ contract". However, there are 9 years total called out in the CLIN structure (CLINs BASE 0001 - OPT 0009) | Please clarify if this is a Base and Seven (7) year contract or a Base and Eight (8) year contract | Base plus seven (7). For a total of 8 years from the date of award. USCG is planning for all contingencies, Worst case 2019-2026 years in case CY 2018 is completely missed due to NSC availability. Offerors must respond with 9 years of pricing in accordance with the RFP or else be considered unresponsive. | ||
| 12 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Page J-2-3, Unmanned Aircraft Performance Specifications | Payload Requirement | The SOO states that the UA shall be capable of accepting modular payloads, defined as payloads that can be replaced or interchanged with the EO or IR payloads. Current sUAS capabilities allow for integration of modular payloads, concurrent in the same air vehicle, with EO/IR payloads, while still meeting endurance and ceiling requirements. | Recommend incorporating an Objective requirement for acceptance of modular payloads, concurrent with EO/IR payload in the same air vehicle. Alternately, please confirm that the ability to fly modular payloads concurrent with EO/IR in the same air vehicle is considered a greater technical value than modular payload capability that requires replacement of the EO/IR payload. | The USCG will not add an objective requirement to the SPS. Any capability exceeding threshold requirements will be evaluated as a strength if deemed beneficial to the government | |
| 13 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1 | Performance Objectives | The Coast Guard states an objective to "Support prosecution by providing … other capabilities to NSC and other government assets…." Additionally, the SPS states on page one that "It is the USCG's intent to include an offeror's proposed values in the sUAS for NSC SPS in Section J of the contract." These statements seem to imply that contractors can propose additional capabilities, not specifically required as threshold or objective in the SOO or SPS, as an added value to the Coast Guard, though it is not clear. | Please confirm that additional capabilities, not specifically addressed in the SOO or SPS, can be proposed and will be evaluated as providing additional value to the government. Also, please confirm that if additional capability is offered, this capability should be priced as part of the contractor's offer. | Each Offeror should provide their best proposition for evaluation meeting at least the threshold requirements as set forth in the SPS (base package). Services, equipment and capabilities beyond those listed in the SPS should be offered and priced independently from the base package. | |
| 14 | Attachment J-12 GFI | Page 1 | The timeline for the estimated first deployment is not specified in the RFP. Attachment J-1 states that the "Installation and testing of contractor equipment will last a maximum of seven weeks", but does not specify how long after contractor award the installation will begin, or if there is any additional time required prior to the deployment of the NSCs. | How many days after the contract award date are the first two (2) scheduled deployment dates? This information is required to insure that lead time requiements for equipment are correctly understood. | This is an IDIQ contract. The Offeror should present the best schedule possible to the USCG, noting that solutions that provide adaptability to change/flexibility will be considered a strength. A reasonable expectation is 6 mos after 3/31/18 award (+ or - few days), which could mean installation completion as early as Sept 2018, however, many factors influence this success (NSC availability/test/contract timely award including allowing for protest resolutions, etc.). | ||
| 15 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 2 | The SOO states that the "sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment" This inferrs that the UA will be flown over international waters and will be onboard NSCs docked in international ports. | Assuming installation in the United States, is the contractor required to acquire export licenses for operations in international waters or for port stops in other countries? | The Offeror should present in their proposal and CLSP how they plan on providing sparing to meet mission requirements | ||
| 16 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1, Perfomance Objectives | National Airspace System (NAS) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | The SOO states that "the sUAS will comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives and standards when flying within the NAS. The sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment. | Will the USCG and FAA be declaring the awardee to be a Public Aircraft Operation (PAO) as defined in USC Section 40125 - Qualification for public aircraft status? | Yes | |
| 17 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1, Perfomance Objectives | National Airspace System (NAS) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | The SOO states that "the sUAS will comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives and standards when flying within the NAS. The sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment. | Is the current provider, awarded under the NAVAIR ISR Services Contract, operating as a Public Aircraft as defined in USC Section 40125 - Qualification for public aircraft status? | The USCG is currently operating under a NAVAIR ISR Services Contract and not at liberty to discuss their contract details. | |
| 18 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1, Perfomance Objectives | National Airspace System (NAS) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | The SOO states that "the sUAS will comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives and standards when flying within the NAS. The sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment. | Please identify which ICAO flight standards are being referenced in the SOO | The awarded UAS providor shall be aware of the cognizant FAA and ICAO rules and regulations for operating the unmanned aircraft and shall be capable of safe, legal, and viable operations in both domestic and international airspace as required. Additional guidance can be found in Flight Information Publications (FLIP) General Planning (GP). | |
| 19 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1, Perfomance Objectives | National Airspace System (NAS) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | The SOO states that "the sUAS will comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives and standards when flying within the NAS. The sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment. | Please identify which FAA directives and standards are being referenced in the SOO | The awarded UAS providor shall be aware of the cognizant FAA and ICAO rules and regulations for operating the unmanned aircraft and shall be capable of safe, legal, and viable operations in both domestic and international airspace as required. Additional guidance can be found in Flight Information Publications (FLIP) General Planning (GP). | |
| 20 | Attachment J-1 SOO | Page 1, Perfomance Objectives | National Airspace System (NAS) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | The SOO states that "the sUAS will comply with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives and standards when flying within the NAS. The sUAS will be capable of meeting applicable ICAO flight standards, including those governing Due Regard operations, to enable worldwide maritime deployment. | Please identify which FCC directives and standards are being referenced in the SOO | The awarded UAS providor shall be aware of the cognizant FAA and ICAO rules and regulations for operating the unmanned aircraft and shall be capable of safe, legal, and viable operations in both domestic and international airspace as required. Additional guidance can be found in DOD Flight Information Publication (FLIP) General Planning (GP). | |
| 21 | Section L | L-5,6 | C - Specific Instructions Volume 1 - Technical Proposal; Tab B Past Performance Section | Section L states that "Past Performance information is limited to 15 pages. PPQs are not included in the Volume 1 page limitation." If CPARs are being provided in lieu of PPQs, it is not stated whether or not these CPARs will count as part of the page limit | Are the copies of the CPARs included in the page count for the Past Performance section | No | |
| 22 | Section L | L-4 | C - Specific Instructions Volume 1 - Technical Proposal | Section L does not state whether supplemental information is included in the 150 page limit for the Technical Volume | Will cover pages, table of contents, indexes, appendices, and attachments count toward the 150 page count for the Technical Volume? | No | |
| 23 | Section L | L-2 | 2. Proposal Instructions - General | Section L requires certain documents to be submitted in accordance with the provided CDRLs. Contractor format would normally include a Cover Page, Table of Contents, and any Tables of Figures/Tables. | Are CDRL coverpages and Table of Contents included in the 150 page limit for the Technical Volume | No | |
| 24 | Section B | Page 1 | Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) | Section B calls out Base and Option years for the CLIN structure. | Are the years identified in each CLIN of section B calendar years, or Government fiscal years?” | CY | |
| 25 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Page 1 | Performance Requirements | All KPPs, KSAs and threshold requirements appear to be madatory to be deemed technically acceptable. | For the purpose of this soliciation how should the contractor treat these requirement differently? We are trying to understand the significance of these designations for this procurement. | KPP, KSAs and all other thresholds identified in the SPS are mandatory to be considered responsive. Any capability exceeding threshold requirements will be evaluated as a strength if deemed beneficial to the government | |
| 26 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Page 2 | Performance requirements | The USCG has identified threshold and objective requirements. | Is there any value in the contractor offering capabilities between the threshold and objective requirement? | Any capability exceeding threshold requirements will be evaluated as a strength if deemed beneficial to the government | |
| 27 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Page 3 | Performance requirements - External lighting | There is no visible external lighting requirement | Is a visible anticollision light required for air safety purposes when flying in the NAS? | This capability is not required in the SPS. Any capability exceeding threshold requirements will be evaluated as a strength if deemed beneficial to the government | |
| 28 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Page 7 | Performance requirements - System Malfunction | What information does the government consider to be "sensitive data" that must be cleared? | Anything recorded and/or stored on the UAS that the tactical commander deems sensitive (i.e. flight parameters, location data, IFF codes, radio encryption, etc). | ||
| 29 | Attachment J-2 SPS | Please confirm that JP5 Fuel is a KSA and not a KPP. If the Air Vehicle has an internal combustion engine, will other fuel types proposed be considered? | The fuel requirement is not a KPP, however the fuel type specified in the SPS is a threshold and any other fuel types will not be considered | ||||
| 30 | Section B | Page 1 | Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) | Could a contractor suggest an improved CLIN structure? | Offerors should provide a proposal that responds to the RFP to be in compliance, then “an alternate” structure on top/in addition is up to the Offeror. | ||
| 31 | Is this IDIQ RFP a services only contract? Is it a hardware and services contract? | This is a services only contract utilizing the Contractor's owned hardware | |||||
| 32 | SECTION_L_Instructions | L-3 | Proposal Preparation and Submission | Would the Government consider a change to single spaced formatting? | Intention would be for the Contractor to provide more information to the Government | No | |
| 33 | SECTION_M_Evaluation_Factors, |
SECTION_L_Instructions
CDRL SL-02 (CLSP)
CDRL AJ16-03 (QCP)
| CDRL SL-03 (SDII) | M-2 |
| L-2 | Section M - Technical |
Section L - Proposal Instructions - General Are the additional response document such as the PWS, CLSP, QCP, and the SDII to be included in the Volume I-Technical Proposal page count or can they be included as separate attachments to Volume I-Technical Proposal with no page limits?
| Separate attachments would provide the Government a more straightfoward way to review the Technical Proposal. | Separate attachment is acceptable. | |||||
| 34 | SECTION_B | 1 | Section B | The RFP states 9 ships but there are 13 Pre-deployment Install Support CLINs. Please clarify if the contractor should provide pricing for the 4 additional Pre-Deployment CLINs? | Ensure contractors are providing the Government with the most accurate and clear representation of total cost. | Yes |
| 35 | SECTION_B | 1 | Section B | Language of opening paragraph in Section B states that this IDIQ is for a total of eight years. The CLINs listed come to a total of 9 years. |
Please provide clarification of this discrepancy.
| Ensure contractors are providing the Government with the most accurate and clear representation of total cost. | USCG requires 9 years of pricing; however it will be a base and 7 year contract. See other response. | ||||||
| 36 | System Design Installation Information (SDII) | Document is secured/locked. In order to fill the CDRL out per requirement in the RFP, could the USCG please provide an unsecured/unlocked version of the CDRL? | Facilitates offerors ability to complete CDRL required at time of proposal submission. | No, SDII format can be Offeror's format | |||
| 37 | Attachment_J-1_SOO | J-1-2 | System Design Objectives | Please provide information as to how contractors can obtain the “DHS Systems Engineering Center of Excellence Technical Review Guide”? | Ensures offerors have a full understanding of the requirements. | No response at this time. Will be made available at award. | |
| 38 | Attachment_J-2_SPS & Attachment_J-4_Contractor_Air_Vehicle_Performance_Specifications | J-2-3 and | |||||
| J-4-1 | Ship Motion Parameter | The threshold values indicate a “velocity” and not acceleration. Recommend replace “acceleration” with the term “rate” or “velocity”. | Technical clarification. | Ok, Offeror should note this in PWS. Govt will address correction in award document. | |||
| 39 | Attachment_J-2_SPS | J-2-11 | Certification/Qualification Requirements | Would the Government be able to release a copy of the document in referenced paragraph “Control of Compromising Emanations, COMDTINST M2241.6 (series)”? | Will support offeror's ability to address requirements within this document. | Unable to release this document with the RFP. The instruction will be made available at award. | |
| 40 | System Performance Specification (SPS) | ||||||
| Technical Evaluation/Technical Ratings | 1 | Could the Government kindly provide additional detail on how additional performance characteristics will be scored? | Intent is to understand how the Government may evaluate additional capabilities. | Any performance characteristics above the objective will be evaluated accordingly per the rating criteria in Section M. | |||
| 41 | Government Furnished Information | 1 | In the DRFP the Government provided estimated number of ships on patrol simultaneously from each location. The number at each location was updated for the final RFP. The Contractor respectfully requests clarification to the number of expected ships on patrol simultaneously from each location? | Clarification in support of pricing and planning. For example the ability to adequately forecast and price spares. | No additional information will be provided at this time, This is an IDIQ contract and the Contractor must plan accordingly to support operations IAW the SOO. | ||
| 42 | WMSL Configuration Drawings | J-13-7 | GCS Rack in CIC | Would the Government consider to provide the dimensions and specifications for the rack illustrated in J-13, sUAS A-Kit, GCS Rack? | Will allow offeror to correctly complete SDII. | The rack specified in the A kit drawing is an A&J standard medium duty rack with dimensions of: 72'' height x 26'' length x 22'' width | |
| 43 | Attachment_J-16_QASP | ||||||
| Attachment_J-17_MRR | J-16-3, 8, 9 | ||||||
| J-17-1 | MRR | The calculations provided in sections J-16 and J-17 appear to not be aligned. Would the Government consider using the industry standard calculation that is provided in J-16 and delete J-17? |
How will the annotations of Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory be used in the calculation of the monthly MRR?
| Clarity of requirements. | Those ratings of Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory are for Daily Sitrep SAMPLE use only. They are not applicable to the monthly MRR which shall use industry standards. Any changes to the USCG QASP or metric definitions will be addressed at award if deemed necessary. | ||||||
| 44 | Attachment_J-18_Pricing_-Blank | 1 | Pricing Sheet | ||||
| Option 0013 | The ceiling quantity of 300 (H15) does not match the assumption of 3 NSCs x 3 100-day deployment (which equals 900 hours). The Contractor respectfully requests the Government correct the ceiling value or assumption in the spreadsheet. | Clarification in support of pricing and planning. | Vendor may correct the excel file. Typo noted. See prior response. | ||||
| 45 | General | N/A | General | Is the USCG using Fiscal Year (FY) or Calendar Year (CY) for pricing and operation periods? | Clarification in support of pricing and planning. | CY. See prior response | |
| 46 | Section L | L-3, L-5 | Section 1 Page limitation | Section L provides a table on page 3 that identifies the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal as 150 pages. The required contents of the Technical Proposal specified on page 5 includes Tab A which include narratives describing the proposed approach to compliance with requirements along with the PWS, three CDRLs, forms J-3 through J-9 and Tab B Background and Experience. Our analysis of the forms J-3 through J-9 indicates that the page count associated with our input to this forms will require 23 pages at the minimum. In addition, we expect the Background and Experience is expected to require the 15 page allotment. As a result the page count available for the narratives, PWS and three CRDLs is only 112 pages. We are concerned the page count limitation will cause us to truncate our responses. | Please confirm the USCG wants the contractor to abide by the 150 pages count for all contents specified in the technical volume. | See prior response | |
| 47 | Section L | L-5 | J3 | J-3 (RVTM) input includes the proposed performance characterizing and the proposal reference location. J-4 through J-8 input is the same proposed performance characteristics. | Please consider eliminating the requirement to submit J-4 through J-8 since the proposed performance characteristic information provided is redundant to the input provided in J-3 | Offerors shall fill out all requested documents. Offerors may use abbreviated answers (as well as reference) in J-3 but full description in J4-J8 . | |
| 48 | Section L | L-4 | Does the government actually need all volumes redacted in accordance with Section L. 4. Proposal Preparation and Submission despite the FOIA Exemption 3, which prohibits release of any contractor competitive proposal in response to this solicitation? | Submit a version of your proposal that has been approved for FOIA disclosure. Offerors should redact as they deem necessary (proprietary/competition sensitive/CPARs data). Only the WINNING proposal's redacted version will be used for FOIA disclosure. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.