SF-30_Amendment 0001_RFP 70Z04426RC2PL2603.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

70Z044

N/A

Christina M. Grimstead, Contracting Officer

This Amendment is issued to:

* Provide answers to questions received from interested offerers; see attached pages.

* Extend the Offer/Proposal Due Date/Time to: No later than 12:00 PM ET, June 10, 2026.

* DoD Safe: If you plan to submit an offer/proposal, request your file drop-off invitation by email (to Amanda.R.Barraclough2@uscg.mil and Christina.M.Grimstead@uscg.mil) no later than 11:00 AM ET, June 8, 2026.

Offerers must acknowledge this Amendment in accordance with Item 11.

70Z044

U.S. Coast Guard C5I Contract Operations Division 3, Branch 2 (CG-C5I-C32) 4000 Coast Guard Blvd.

Portsmouth, VA 23703-2199

U.S. Coast Guard C5I Contract Operations Division 3, Branch 2 (CG-C5I-C32) 4000 Coast Guard Blvd.

Portsmouth, VA 23703-2199

N/A

N/A

70Z04426RC2PL2603

N/A

1 6

05/27/2026

05/08/2026

RFP: 70Z04426RC2PL2603 / Amendment 0001

# REFERENCE Question GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

NXSSR-SR-6 (2.3.1.6) Objective: The system shall have the capability to track a minimum of 10 Digital Selective Calling (DSC) targets.

While detailed in IEC 62288, DSC targets are not part of IEC 62388 radar target symbology standards. Can USCG offer an example of how DSC target symbology will be used in addition to or in place of a standard radar target?

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

NXSSR-SR-14 (2.3.1.14) Objective:

The system shall include the capability to receive data via NMEA 2000 (target, route, etc.).

NXSSR-SR-15 (2.3.1.15) Objective:

The system shall include the capability to send data via NMEA OneNet (target, route, etc.).

We question the adoption of NMEA One Net as a future-looking requirement for IMO radars. Other objective requirements like IEC61162-450 networking are already deployed and in practice, nationally & domestically (CONUS) and globally (OCONUS). NMEA One Net is not part of IMO/SOLAS underlying data structure in IEC 62288 or 62388. In the understanding that NMEA One Net is intended to resolve the transmission of IEC61162-3 (NMEA2000) messages (one layer) along with TCP/IP Ethernet (another layer), there is an argument for an external interface to resolve these competing interfacing concerns, rather than force non-native requirements on equipment built specifically for a regulatory purpose. How shall industry respond if modification of our equipment to USCG requirements results in failure to meet international type approvals to which to date we have been compliant? Is USCG prepared to accept goods under contract if they are no longer type approved (or approvable) due to changes made to achieve contract Objectives?

The Government provided this requirement as an objective requirement.

NEMA 0183 is the threshold requirement. Industry should respond with the capability of their solution/products with the IMO certification in mind. If there is an optional adapter capability available to meet the objective requirement, then industry should provide that information in their proposal response as appropriate.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

Section Number 2.3.2, Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) (all Objectives)

USCG will see that our company can meet this Objective, but we also question the inclusion of ADF symbology in an IMO radar display based on two factors.

One, it is readily acknowledged by industry and the user base that ADF/RDF technology is aging out and being replaced by more modern technologies (SART, EPIRB, multiple satellite distress messaging systems). Two, following Q2 above, we suggest that adding a capability burden to a regulatory device for which it is not designed defeats the purpose of its performance standards and approval process. Would ADF display capability not be preferred on an ECDIS, ECS or another chart-based tool that would provide direct navigation and steerage for SAR and related vessels?

The Government provided this requirement as an objective requirement.

Industry should respond with the capability of their solution/products with the IMO certification in mind as a threshold requirement and if there is the capability to include ADF. We concur, that this is typically preferred on an ECDIS, ECS, etc.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

Section Number 2.3.4.2.2 and related Objectives for BFT/STEDS- EAIS e.g.

2.3.8.18.2 through 13 as well as 2.3.8.25

While AIS is well documented in IEC61162-2 and -3 (NMEA 0183 and 2000 respectively), USCG-specific BFT/STEDS-EAIS is not. Why would USCG introduce non-IMO symbology such as BFT/STEDS-EAIS when to do so puts industry at risk of non-compliance with the overarching IMO and IEC standards (specifically IEC 62288 and 62388) that USCG is mandating for the solicitation?

BFT is a Coast Guard operational requirement designed not to interfere with industry standards; objective requirement could be embedded within ARPA application per Attachment 5.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

Section Number 2.3.10.4.2

Can USCG provide any amplifying information on the statement “presentation of charted information”? While our company meets IHO S52, on further review, this reference regards electronic chart presentation standards, not radar presentation standards.

If Industry meets IHO S52, then that satisifies the requirement. To clarify there is no chart requirement in this solicitation.

Attachment 5, Requirement Document, Task Order 1

Section 3.1.2, Security

Our company is an American company, but it is no secret that we are a subsidiary of a Japanese company with principally Japanese engineers engaged in hardware, software, SDK and application development.

The referenced 3.1.2 states “The contractor will ensure personnel hold U.S.

citizenship...”. To the best of our knowledge, within industry there is no US company that manufactures the products contained in the solicitation, and no sole US product and SDK/ARPA application development engineers available to perform these tasks.

Will it be possible from time to time for non-US personnel to obtain access in-person or remotely for engagement with materials subsequent to any award?

The Government recommends planning for remote communications if assistance from a non-US personnel becomes necessary.

Non-US personnel may be granted access on Government property but this is a lengthy process and may not always be approved.

Is the Coast Guard seeking a single radar or multiple radars? The opening statement in the general description: “ The Coast Guard (CG) seeks to procure a scalable, International Maritime Organization (IMO) certified Shipborne Surveillance Radar (SSR) system to serve as the primary collision avoidance system, enhancing navigation and surveillance for cutters and shore units” implies you intend to procure one radar for all applications.”

The Government seeks an IMO type-certified X-band and S-Band radar solution with varying array lengths to meet scalable needs.

Do you intend to use a shipborne navigational radar for Coastal Sentinel applications? Navigational radars will underperform sensing threats such as jet skis, drones, etc. and will not provide situational awareness of Coast Guard aviation assets.

The Government intends to use an IMO type-certified radar for varying applications.

Does this same radar need to meet the IALA requirements for vessel traffic service (VTS) radars?

No.

For Coast Sentinel radars, does the Coast Guard require the radar to be able detect vessels smaller than the current SOLAS sized vessels? Is the Coastal Sentinel radar required to enable future detection requirements for meaningful maritime domain dominance (i.e. jet skis) and aircraft including UAS? The challenge being that the current radar specifications were written around technology in vogue 20-30 years ago and does not consider the technologies available today.

The Government intends to use an IMO type-certified radar for varying missions. Coastal Sentinel is a newer requirement, and not yet fully defined. The IDIQ contract ceiling will allow for potentially fulfilling some radar needs of Coastal Sentinel during the IDIQ contract ordering period.

There are numerous open RFIs for situational awareness across Coast Guard platforms, is it the Coast Guard’s intent that these radars meet those current and future requirements, including the turn-key VTS requirements from the various RFIs (e.g. HOUGAL, SSF, and LMR, etc.)?

Other RFIs are outside of the scope of this solicitation.

12 Attachment 3, Price Schedule

Question: The Part Prices sheet is very specific i.e.,”6.5' Open Array - X Band,” which would indicate there is already a part number in mind. Our X-band offering is not these dimensions.

Proposed Action/Change: Propose more specifics on radar capability requirements and less on physical size/dimensions (unless a radar is already picked out).

Physical size/Dimensions are pertinent due to space limitations both Afloat and Ashore. Both capability and physical size/dimension have been defined in Attachment 2, Technical Specifications/Warranty.

The "Instructions to Offerors" Section at the bottom of each "Part Prices" tab within Attachment 3 states "Offerors must propose a solution that meets all threshold requirements listed in Attachment 2 (NXSSR Tech Spec and Warranty). Individual parts may vary based on Offeror's proposed solution."

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

2.1.4.1

Question: Specific array size

Proposed Action/Change: Propose more specifics on radar capability requirements and less on physical size/dimensions.

Physical size/Dimensions are pertinent due to space limitations both Afloat and Ashore. Both capability and physical size/dimension have been defined in Attachment 2, Technical Specifications/Warranty.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

2.1.5.1 and NxSSR-SR-50

Question: 2.1.5.1 says Ashore has to have a S-BAND component. NxSSR-SR- 50 says that it does not.

Proposed Action/Change: Recommend that the Ashore does not need an S-band requirement

No.

Also, NxSSR-SR-50 (in Attachment 2) does state that an S band is required for Afloat and Ashore.

Question: No airborne requitements i.e., UAS

Proposed Action/Change: For the Ashore, recommend the radar be required to track both Martime and Airborne targets simultaneously. Radars exist today that can meet both requirements with a single radar.

No.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

NxSSR-SR-49

Question: The system shall support X-band (9.2-9.5 GHz). Our X-band radars are 9.3-9.8 GHz.

Proposed Action/Change: Clarify if the requirement is that it has to go all the way down to 9.2 GHz?

The Radar needs to be able to operate within the range of 9.2 - 9.5 GHz range as per IMO.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

NxSSR-SR-109 through -111

Question: Should these be an ashore requirement? Radar needs doppler. Fixed ashore radar will not detect a static shoreline.

Proposed Action/Change: Suggest removing for Ashore.

Attachment 2 will not be revised to remove Ashore requirement for NxSSR-SR-109 through -111.

Attachment 2, NXSSR Tech Spec/Warranty

NxSSR-SR-761

Question: Very specific to a type of radar. If this requirement remains for ashore, it limits radars that can reply.

Proposed Action/Change: Propose more specifics on radar capability requirements and less on specifics for SWAP (unless there is already a radar picked out).

Attachment 2, Technical Specifications provides the most current Government need.