TCS PSS_CfS QandA _Round 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tactical Communication Systems - Procurement, Services & Sustainment (TCS-PSS) Call for Solutions
- Solicitation number
- CSO-ARMY-TCS-PSS-2027
About this file
This file is a Question and Answer document for Round 2 of a federal Call for Solutions (CFS) regarding tactical communication systems procurement, services, and sustainment.
The CFS CSO-ARMY-TCS-PSS-2027, issued by the Department of the Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground on behalf of Product Manager Tactical Communication Systems, seeks innovative tactical communication capabilities through multiple single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts and/or Other Transactions (OTs) to support Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2). The solicitation has a 10-year enterprise acquisition framework focused on procurement, testing, fielding, and lifecycle sustainment of tactical communication hardware, software, and services. Vendors must submit white papers by December 14, 2026, and the Government seeks solutions with NSA High Assurance certification or Sensitive but Unclassified-Encrypted (SBU-E) qualification, coupled with a Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) plan achieving NIST validation by December 31, 2030. Award instruments will vary and may be FAR-based (FAR 12 or FAR 15) or Other Transactions authorized under 10 U.S.C. §4021 or §4022, with contract type determined post-evaluation based on the proposed solution and Government needs.
The Q&A clarifies that submissions are limited to integrated tactical communication systems and exclude standalone end-user devices, CMOSS/CMFF chassis, and EMSO devices. Solutions must address VHF 30-88 MHz for SINCGARS interoperability, support both Type 1 and SBU-E capabilities, include crypto-agility for software upgrades, and comply with FIPS 140-3 Level 3 validation by December 31, 2030. Offerors may address subsets of scope aligning with their capabilities, teaming arrangements are permitted with subcontractor plans deferred to Phase 3, and the Government will not facilitate vendor matchmaking before white paper submission. Access to controlled technical information requires verified CAGE codes, approved DD Form 2345 (Military Critical Technical Data Agreements), Joint Certification Program credentials, and executed CUI Non-Disclosure Agreements. All white papers must be unclassified but may include proprietary and CUI markings, are limited to 15 pages (excluding table of contents and compliance artifacts), and must include DFARS 252.227-7992 data rights tables; failure to provide complete data rights documentation may render offers ineligible for award. Phase 1 white papers remain valid for 24 months, though the Government may invite selected vendors to Phase 2 or Phase 3 for additional proposal development and testing; Phase 3 RFPs will be identical for all selected offerors, but individual solutions are expected to differ based on proposed products, services, and pricing.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| TCS PSS_CfS _Vendor Questions and Government Responses_29Oct26.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TCS-PSS CSO_10192026_final.pdf |
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
Non-propreitary
| Question # | Vendor Question | Government Response |
| 1 | May an OEM propose a commercially available rugged Android 5G end-user device as a standalone component for direct procurement under this Call, without supplying the tactical radio, tactical waveforms or the complete transport system? Or is the scope limited to communications systems that provide 5G connectivity and connect to existing government-approved end-user devices? | The scope of this CFS is limited to communications systems and related hardware, software, services, sustainment, and integration capabilities. A commercially available rugged Android 5G end-user device proposed as a standalone component is not within the scope of this Call. |
| 2 | If standalone end-user devices are eligible, please clarify: |
| Which technical and security requirements apply to the device itself, and which approvals must exist at white-paper submission, award and fielding? | Standalone end-user devices are not within the scope of this CFS. | ||
| 3 | Can you please provide a technical definition of “government approved” in this context and if there are any specific requirements for existing ATO, contracting vehicles, or past performance data in support of Federal agencies? | ||
| For purposes of this CFS, "Government approved" means End User Device fielded by Product Manager Soldier Maneuver Sensors. | |||
| 4 | Can an endpoint OEM receive a direct award, or must the device be supplied through a radio or system integrator? | ||
| Endpoint devices are not within the scope of this CFS. Accordingly, the Government is not seeking standalone endpoint-device proposals or direct awards for such devices under this Call. | |||
| 5 | Is there a separately anticipated end-user-device quantity and delivery period, or has no separate device requirement been defined? | No. There is not a separate end user device requirement. | |
| 6 | Given that these capabilities are applicable across multiple radio platforms and directly support the Army's objectives for interoperability, modernization, and resilience, will the Army consider independent submissions from manufacturers of radio-agnostic accessories and integration solutions such as WedgeLink? Or must these capabilities be proposed as part of a larger solution submitted by each respective tactical radio manufacturer? |
| No. Independent evaluation of solutions that include accessories and integration offerings as described are not within the scope of this CFS. | ||
| 7 | No details of forms visible - can you please share details so we may respond? | The attachments associated with this CFS contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) subject to Limited Dissemination Controls and Export Controls. In order to be compliant and receive these secure files, interested vendors must request the documents in SAM.gov, provide their CAGE Code, a copy of their approved DD Form 2345 (Military Critical Technical Data Agreement), their verified Joint Certification Program (JCP) number, and a signed CUI NDA to the point of contacts listed in the SAM.gov posting. A CUI NDA is required for each employee that will be handling the CUI associated with the Call for Solutions. Once your CAGE code, JCP credentials, and NDA have been successfully validated by our contracting team, the restricted CUI documents will be sent securely to your designated recipient and approved in SAM.gov. |
| 8 | Question 1 (Section 3 — PQC plan / ATLAS). Amendment 3 responses 3, 72, 78 and 82 identify "Acquisition, Testing, and Licensing Authorization for Security (ATLAS)" as required evidence of post-quantum viability and as the Department of War authorization that precedes NSA sponsorship. Please identify (a) the Department of War office that administers ATLAS, (b) where the ATLAS submission instructions, intake criteria and timelines are published or when they will be, and (c) whether a software cryptographic component (for example, a post-quantum key-establishment and tunnel-protection module intended for integration into a tactical radio or its host) may be submitted to ATLAS by the component developer, or only by the radio original equipment manufacturer as part of an end item. |
| (a) The PQC Directorate within DoW CIO (b) Phase 3 instructions as part of the vendor submission, the Government will enter your solution's ATLAS Intake questionnaire data, to include technical whitepaper artifact sufficiently detailed showing how algorithms, protocols, and cryptographic architectures interact in the solution, to include protocol flow diagrams, system design and architecture schematics with algorithms/protocols for different actions highlighted in the relevant placement, random number generation methods and key storage, and key management as relevant to the solution. (c) No, the Government sponsor will enter your solution's ATLAS Intake questionnaire data, to include uploading whitepaper artifact, into the Common Access Card-only accessible site for DoW CIO PQC Directorate feedback expected within weeks. | ||
| 9 | Question 2 (Section 6 — teaming between software-security vendors and equipment providers). Response 81 confirms a cybersecurity business may support a tactical communications manufacturer's or integrator's post-quantum plan through teaming, and response 2 states the Interested Vendor List will not be published. Will the Government facilitate introductions between software-security vendors and tactical communications equipment providers, for example through a Government-sponsored test event as described in response 68, so that component capabilities can be paired with an end item before White Paper submission? | No. The Government will not facilitate introductions or matchmaking between software-security vendors and tactical communications equipment providers before White Paper submission. Offerors are responsible for identifying and establishing any teaming arrangements necessary to support their proposed solutions. |
| 10 | Section 3. For a software-only transport security solution that runs above, and does not replace, the SBU-E encryption of fielded radios and end user devices, does the SBU-E certification threshold in Response #9 apply to the software itself, or is it met by the host device it runs on? | For software-only solutions, the SBU-E certification threshold applies to the host device. |
| 11 | Section 7. Responses #4 and #84 indicate specialized security capabilities are evaluated as components of an end-to-end solution, while Responses #17 and #32 permit independent software submissions. May a software offeror submit independently by demonstrating integration with fielded, SBU-E certified radios and end user devices in its white paper, without a formal teaming partner? | Please refer to Section 3 in the CFS for the desired attributes and product characteristics |
| 12 | Sections 3 and 6. For a software offeror implementing the full CNSA 2.0 suite today, will a documented FIPS 140-3 validation plan and CMVP timeline under Section 6.1.1.C.7(e) satisfy the SBU-E threshold at the Phase 1 stage, with validation to follow? | At Phase 1, offerors shall provide a documented plan and timeline to achieve and maintain FIPS 140-3 Level 3 validation. |
| 13 | Section 8. Will the Government provide points of contact for the non-Government advisors identified in Section 8 before the submission date? | Please refer to section 8 in the Call for Solutions for the non-Government support contractor services and points of contact. |
| 14 | Are CMOSS/CMFF-aligned chassis and radio/networking plug-in cards within scope when they provide the hosting and integration infrastructure for tactical transport capabilities? | No. CMOSS/CMFF-aligned chassis and radio/networking plug-in cards are not within the scope of this CFS. |
| 15 | Will the Government consider an integrated solution that combines tactical radios, secure network orchestration and edge computing within a common modular platform, or should the submission be limited to transport-specific components? | Yes, the Government will consider an integrated solution that combines tactical radios, secure network orchestration and edge computing within a common modular platform. |
| 16 | Will the Government accept test data from Project Convergence, Army exercises, government laboratories or other DoD programs to reduce duplicate testing? If so, what documentation is required? | The Government will consider relevant test data from Government-sponsored events or third-party organizations. Offerors should provide the applicable test report issued by the Government event sponsor or third-party organization. |
| 17 | May the proposed solution incorporate third-party commercial radios, waveforms and network-management products under an integration-led offering? If so, what evidence of OEM authorization or teaming is required at the white-paper stage? | Offerors are responsible for teaming and subcontracting arrangements . The prime contractor is responsible for vetting, authorizing, and managing its subcontractors’ and teaming partners’ access to CUI in accordance with its internal security processes and all applicable contractual and CUI safeguarding requirements. Subcontractor plans will not be required until Phase 3. |
| 18 | Please clarify the expected Phase 1 evidence for CNSA 2.0/post-quantum compliance, including whether a product roadmap is sufficient where relevant algorithms, components or NIST validations are not yet commercially available. | Offerors shall provide a validation plan to achieve and maintain FIPS 140-3 Level 3 validation. |
| 19 | For solutions categorized as “Acceptable for Testing,” does the Government anticipate testing the complete integrated configuration, its individual components, or both? | The Government anticipates testing the complete integrated configuration. |
| 20 | What quantities, duration and support personnel should offerors assume for vendor-provided bailed assets during laboratory and operational testing? | Offerors should assume delivery of three initial production-representative devices for Government use for up to one year. |
| 21 | Please define the costs the Government expects to be included in “cold-start production unit pricing,” including NRE, tooling, certification, integration and production-line restart costs. | Cold Start manufacturing pricing arrangements are unique to each OEM who is responsible for defining the individual elements of expense and long term competitive strategy for their "starting from scratch" production line(s) |
The Government would generally expect “cold-start production unit pricing” to identify all costs necessary to initiate or resume production, including, as applicable, nonrecurring engineering, tooling, certification/qualification, integration, and production-line restart costs, together with normal recurring manufacturing content. The proposal should clearly distinguish ROM for systems and/or subsystems and explain whether such costs are separately priced, embedded in unit pricing, or amortized across a stated production quantity.
| 22 | Is there a preference between Type 1 and SBU-E capability, or is the desire to have a solution that can support both? | The Government seeks both: a capability that supports Type 1 and SBU-E requirements, as well as a separate SBU-E capability. |
| 23 | Will the FMS contracting office have any involvement in the solicitation or award process? | Section 1 of CfS is updated for clarification. |
| 24 | The Government has indicated that post-quantum cryptography readiness, Cryptographic Bill of Materials (CBOM), migration planning, and crypto-agility capabilities are evaluated only as components of a complete tactical communications solution. Where a prime offeror’s end item relies on a named teaming partner to generate the required machine-readable CBOM, the FIPS 203/204/205 migration roadmap, the crypto-agility assessment, and the ATLAS evidence package, will the Government accept those partner-generated artifacts as satisfying the PQC-plan requirement, provided the partner is identified in the White Paper and the Organizational Conflict of Interest (Section 9) and data-rights (DFARS 252.227-7992) requirements are met? | Yes |
| 25 | For the required machine-readable Cryptographic Bill of Materials, does the Government have a preferred schema (e.g., CycloneDX 1.6 CBOM, SPDX 3.0, or an NSA/NIST-specified format) and a required granularity (per-device, per-module, per-protocol, or per-algorithm)? Will a CycloneDX 1.6 CBOM be considered compliant at the Phase 1 White Paper stage? | Government is still finalizing the standard, expect definition by Phase 3. Required granularity per algorithm. Yes, for Phase 1, CycloneDX1.6 is compliant. |
| 26 | When referring to ability to connect wirelessly to and EUD or Headset on the soldier, what waveforms are intended to be the target for this implementation? Intra-Soldier Wireless for RED channels and Bluetooth or other commercial waveforms for BLACK side? Also, can some of these requirements be met with accessory devices attached to the radio. For instance could M-Code GPS be an attachable accessory rather than an integrated component? The same question applies to access to local wireless networks like 5G. Also, what deems a component "critical risk" for easy access externally? | Government wireless waveforms for RED channels and commercial wireless waveforms for BLACK side. Yes, requirements can be met with accessory devices to the radio. Yes, M-Code GPS, and, or, 5G can be an attachable accessory. Critical risk in this context refers to the maintainability of the device allowing a user to remove and replace high failure components externally. |
| 27 | We would like to receive access to the CUI data | Please see the answer to Question #7. |
| 28 | Software-only transport: Will the Government accept white papers for software-only secure-transport layers that run over existing tactical radios/bearers, without offering radio hardware? | The Government is not seeking standalone solutions; however, integrated software components may be considered. |
| 29 | Partial scope: May an offeror address a subset of the scope (e.g., PQC-ready secure transport and cybersecurity/RMF support) rather than the full procurement/sustainment scope? Will single-award IDIQs be scoped per capability area? | Offerors may address a subset of the scope that aligns with their capabilities, products, services, and business model. The scope of any resulting single-award IDIQ contract will be determined by the Government based on mission needs, the proposed solution, and applicable award decisions. |
| 30 | PQC plan: For the plan to incorporate PQC-compliant algorithms and achieve NIST validation by 31 Dec 2030, does the Government expect CMVP (FIPS 140-3) validation, CAVP algorithm validation, or both? Is a phased plan acceptable where no validation is yet held? | For the PQC plan, the Government expects a phased plan to achieve FIPS 140-3 level 3 validation by 31 Dec 2030. |
| 31 | CNSA 2.0: Should PQC plans align specifically to CNSA 2.0 (e.g., ML-KEM-1024), and should hybrid classical/PQC modes be addressed? | Post-quantum cryptography plans should align with CNSA 2.0. Hybrid classical/PQC modes are not required. |
| 32 | NSA High Assurance vs. SBU-E: Is being NSA High Assurance certified or SBU-E qualified a threshold requirement at the white paper stage, or may offerors propose a path to qualification? | Offerors may propose a path to NSA High Assurance certification and, or, SBU-E qualification. |
| 33 | CUI attachments: Can a responsive white paper be prepared using only the public CfS description without the CUI/export-controlled attachments? If not, which sections depend on them? Can the NDA template be posted so vendors can complete it while their DD Form 2345 is processed? | No, a responsive white paper can not be prepared using only the public CFS description without the CUI/export-controlled attachments. The CUI/export-controlled CFS contains product characteristics and desired solution attributes that offerros shall address as well explicit white paper instructions that shall be followed. The NDA is not posted publicly on SAM.gov. However, vendors do not need to wait for their DD Form 2345 to be fully processed to obtain the NDA. Vendors can request the NDA by emailing the Contracting POCs listed in the SAM.gov posting. |
| 34 | Markings: Confirm white papers must be unclassified, and whether proprietary markings (e.g., DFARS 252.227-7017 assertions) should appear. | As stated in Section 5 of the Call for Solutions, "All responses submitted under this Call for Solutions must be Unclassified, Proprietary/CUI: Unclassified proprietary data and CUI are permitted but must be explicitly and properly marked per DoD regulations.". |
| 35 | Format: What are the page/slide limit and required format for white papers, and what is excluded from the count (cover, ROM table, resumes)? | Please refer to Section 6.1.1 Phase 1 - White Paper Content, for White Paper formatting, content, and page count instructions. |
| 36 | ROM: Is there a required ROM/cost-schedule format or template? | No. There is no required ROM/cost-schedule format or template for Phase 1. Detailed cost and schedule submission requirements will be provided to offerors invited to Phase 3. |
| 37 | Small business: With no set-aside, are there evaluation considerations for small or nontraditional defense contractors (10 U.S.C. 3014)? | This CFS expands the Army’s engagement with innovative commercial vendors including traditional and non‑traditional defense contractors, which can include large and small businesses. No additional evaluation considerations are made for small or non-traditional defense contractors. |
| 38 | OT vs. FAR: What determines whether an awardee receives an OT or a FAR-based IDIQ, and is cost share expected for OTs? | The Government will determine the appropriate award instrument after evaluating the proposed solution and considering the Government’s operational mission needs, the nature of the proposed solution, and funding availability. Regarding cost-sharing expectations for OTs , the Call for Solutions does not state an expectation for OT cost sharing. Any cost-share requirement, if applicable to a future OT, will be identified during the applicable follow-on negotiation process. |
| 39 | Facility clearance: Will any phase require a facility clearance or DD Form 254? | A facility clearance and/or DD Form 254 may be required following contract award, as applicable. |
| 40 | CMMC: What CMMC level will apply, and is it required at proposal or at award? | The vendor's information systems will process, store, or transmit technical designs, software code, and interface specifications (Controlled Technical Information) resulting in CMMC Level 2 applied to the vendor's enterprise environment handling this data at award. |
| 41 | Pitches: What are the format, location (virtual?) and notice period for any pitch phase? | As stated in Section 5.1 in the Call for Solutions, selected offerors may be invited to present and discuss their solution in a live or virtual setting. Additionally, per Section 7.2, White Papers that are chosen for Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 will be notified in writing as soon as practicable. |
| 42 | Test events: Are there planned lab or field test events where a candidate transport solution could be evaluated with PdM TCS? | Test events will be both lab and field based. Vendors will be invited to events as solutions are reivewed for the various Army needs. |
| 43 | Question 1 – Scope of Software Sustainment Capabilities |
Does the Government consider commercial software platforms providing secure software deployment, cybersecurity patching, software lifecycle management, and long-term sustainment to be within the scope of the TCS-PSS solicitation, either as standalone capabilities or as components integrated into broader tactical communications solutions?
Question 2 – Participation by Specialized Software Providers
Would the Government consider submissions from commercial software providers offering specialized software sustainment capabilities independently of tactical communications hardware, or should such capabilities be proposed through teaming arrangements with tactical communications OEMs or prime contractors?
| Yes. Software sustainment platforms supporting tactical communication systems are within scope as integrated components. Specialized software providers may submit independently or as part of a team. | ||
| 44 | Please clarify the purpose of the reference to "Awarding Instrument Solicitation W9128Z-25-S-A002" and link since the Government states awards in response to CSO-ARMY-TCS-PSS will be made via multiple SA-IDIQs, presumably separate and unrelated to Solicitation W9128Z-25-S-A002. Is the link to the specified solicitation provided only as an example of procedures applicable to CfS CSO-ARMY-TCS-PSs-2027? | No. Solicitation W9128Z-25-S-A002 is not cited merely as an example of procedures. The TCS-PSS Call for Solutions (CSO-ARMY-TCS-PSS-2027) is issued under Army Open Solicitation (AOS) W9128Z-25-S-A002, and the link is provided because the applicable AOS legal authorities and procedures govern the Call. |
| 45 | Will the Government please provide the required Proprietary Protection Agreement template? | The Government will not provide a Proprietary Protection Agreement (PPA) template. Offerors whose submissions include proprietary information should contact the identified non-Government advisors directly to establish the required PPA and any associated NDA as stated in Section 8 of the Call for Solutions. |
| 46 | Are Offerors required to submit a Proprietary Protection Agreement and NDA with their White Paper submittal? | As stated in Section 8 of the CFS in the event that CSO responses include proprietary information, respondents are also required to sign and provide a proprietary protection agreement in accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b) with the CSO response to allow support contractor access to the proprietary information. Addtionally, by submitting information to the Government, the Company further understands that it had an opportunity to enter into an NDA directly with the Non-Government Advisor and therefore waives any and all claims against the Government for any disclosures of proprietary information by the non-Government personnel. Such NDAs are the responsibility of the Company, and the Government shall not be a party to them. Companies shall provide a copy of the signed NDAs to the Government with submissions. |
| 47 | Will the Government please confirm that it has entered into an agreement with the specified Non-Government Advisors, protecting Offeror's response submissions? | The Government will require any Non-Government Advisors supporting the evaluation to execute appropriate non-disclosure and conflict-of-interest agreements before receiving access to Offeror submissions. |
| 48 | Item 3 states, "Commercial Viability". However, elsewhere in the CfS Instructions (e.g., 6.1.1. item D; 7.1 and 7.1.c) states, "Company Viability". Please clarify the "Commercial Viability" statement in section 5, Item 3 | Section 7.1 was updated to reflect that company viability and commerciality should be addressed in the White Paper submission. |
| 49 | Per Section 5.7, are Offerors required to submit completed DFARS 252.227-7992 (DEV 2026-O0036) and 252.227-7989 (DEV 2026-O0036) in response to Phase 1 - White Paper? | Yes, as stated in the section titled " Call Instructions and Notes," interested parties submitted White Papers are required to specifically identify Data/Software Rights Assertions related to technical data and software deliverables utilizing the format prescribed in DFARS 252.227-7992(d) (DEVIATION 2026-O0036). As indicated in DFARS 252.227-7992(e) (DEVIATION 2026-O0036), an Offeror's failure to submit, complete, or sign the notification and identification required by paragraph (d) with its offer may render the offer ineligible for award. |
| 50 | Q&A #11, the Government stated, "Additionally, Phase 1 White Papers remain valid for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of submission. During this 24-month validity window, the Government reserves the right to initiate an award based on these submissions without requiring the submission of a new Phase 1 White Paper." |
However, ROM pricing provided in response to Phase 1 White Paper is non-binding. This is supported by 6.1.1 Phase 1 -White Paper, C.8, which states the ROM is not a commitment and is only considered for purposes of estimating. Therefore, please clarify how the Government intends to issue an award in response to Phase 1? The Government’s reference to initiating an award within the 24-month validity period does not mean that an award will be made solely on the basis of the Phase 1 White Paper or its non-binding rough order of magnitude (ROM) pricing. During the 24-month validity period, the Government may use a previously submitted Phase 1 White Paper to identify and invite one or more vendors to proceed to a subsequent phase of the process, such as Phase 2 or Phase 3, as applicable. Any required pricing would be requested and evaluated during the applicable subsequent phase before award.
51 10/29/26 Q&A #28 and 29, the Government stated, "The Government envisioned multiple SA-IDIQ to meet supply and services needs under this effort."
| Will the Government clarify, and provide examples of the types of task orders it will award under each SA-IDIQ? | The types of delivery/task orders issued under each SA-IDIQ will be driven by the Government’s specific requirements at the time of award. Requirements may vary across the SA-IDIQs based on each awardee’s proposed scope, capabilities, and solution. | ||
| 52 | C.7(b) asks for confirmation of MIL-STD-810H Change Notice 1 compliance. Will test evidence to MIL-STD-810G with a delta analysis to 810H CN1 be accepted for Phase 1, or is 810H retest required prior to VPL placement or award? | Test evidence to MIL-STD-810G with delta analysis to 810H CN1 is acceptable for Phase 1. | |
| 53 | Attribute 20 references Government-defined jammer-to-signal ratios. Will the J/S ratios and the test methodology be provided before Phase 2/3, or only during bailed-asset testing? | The Government-defined jammer-to-signal ratios and test methodology will be provided during bailed-asset testing. | |
| 54 | Attribute 26 asks for three production-representative devices for radiated emissions characterization. When are these due (with the white paper, or upon selection for testing), and what are the bailment terms (duration, return, loss risk, quantity for operational evaluation under 7.2)? | The three production-representative devices shall be provided upon selection for testing. Offerors should assume a bailment period of up to one year. | |
| 55 | Section 8 requires signed proprietary protection agreements with DAS Services and SigmaTech to be provided with submissions. Must the NDAs be fully executed before 13 DEC, and are they exempt from the page limit? | Offerors must provide the applicable proprietary protection agreement/NDA to the identified SETA contractor no later than the White Paper submission deadline. The agreement/NDA does not count against the White Paper page limit. | |
| 56 | To give an accurate ROM, in paragraph 8, can you clarify whether the ROM should be based on 5,000 Radios or should the ROM cost include the ancillaries that comprise the dismounted/mounted configurations detailed in section | For ROM development purposes, respondents may assume a planning rate of 5,000 radios annually to estimate unit pricing and production lead times. This assumption is provided solely to support a common estimating basis and does not constitute a Government commitment, guarantee, or minimum quantity under the CSO process. |
If the dismounted or mounted configurations in the section referenced include ancillaries as part of the deliverable configuration, those ancillaries should be reflected in the ROM.
| 57 | a) Should the ROM price the radio alone, or a full Mounted or Dismounted Kit as defined in C.3? | |
| The ROM should price the full Mounted and/or Dismounted Kit, as applicable, as defined in Section C.3, rather than the radio alone, to the extent those kit components are part of the required deliverable configuration. Respondents should clearly identify what is included in the ROM price, any separately priced items, and any assumptions regarding kit composition or quantities. | ||
| 58 | b) If kits, which mounted/dismounted should we use? | Provide the most optimal production schedule and minimum quantity requirements to maintain “hot” production line(s). Identify proposed project schedule and total estimated out-the-door price to include “cold-start” production unit pricing. In order to aid in the development of ROMs for production unit pricing respondents may assume notional annual delivery requirement of 5,000 radios, structured as an equal split of Mounted Kits and Dismounted Kits. This notional figure is not a commitment or minimum guarantee under this CSO process. It is only to be considered for purposes of estimating and establishing production lead times. |
| 59 | c) Does the Army require integration in existing vehicle mounts; Or is it acceptable to propose our own that have been fielded by 4th ID? | Offerors should address integration with existing vehicle mounts and may also propose their own fielded mounting solutions. |
| 60 | d) Should the Dismounted Kit include chargers and spare batteries, or only the single rechargeable battery listed? | Kits should include a spare battery, charger, and necessary equipment needed for a complete dismounted configurations. If there is multiple charging device, please note that in the description of the item. |
| 61 | e) What is the Government’s anticipated timeline for first orders and initial fielding, and which formations or platforms are expected to field first? This will help us align production lead times and hotline pricing to the Army’s schedule. | The Government cannot provide an anticipated timeline for first orders, initial fielding, or identification of initial formations or platforms at this time. |
| 62 | Scope item 10, 'waveform porting to Army specified platforms': does the Army expect vendors to port Government waveforms onto vendor radios, vendor waveforms onto Army SDRs, or both, and which platforms? | Yes, the Army expects vendors to port Government waveforms to both vendor radios, vendor waveforms onto Army SDR for High Assurance and SBU-E platforms. |
| 63 | Attribute 30, 'access to a local wireless network (5G)': is the intent that the radio operate as a 5G client, or that the solution federate/interoperate with a tactical 5G network? | The intent is that the radio operates as a client to commercial and private 5G tactical networks. |
| 64 | What policy, contract clause, accreditation requirement, or security control is driving the MFA request? | Zero Trust access management, NIST SP 800-63-4/53 Rev 5, DoDI 8520.03 |
| 65 | Do they require a particular MFA technology or government credential—CAC/PIV, client certificate, hardware token, TOTP, passkey/FIDO2—or integration with an existing identity system? | The CFS does not mandate a specific MFA technology or designate an exclusive government credential or identity system for integration. Describe the specific MFA standards and authenticators supported by your solution for local and network privileged administrative access, particularly for Disconnected, Degraded, Intermittent, and Low-Bandwidth environments where enterprise may not be fully reachable. Describe how your solution performs cryptographic attestation of hardware, software, and configuration integrity prior to granting network access. Describe your solution's ability to integrate with standard tactical ICAM frameworks or enterprise entity providers. |
| 66 | Is there an existing enterprise identity service we must integrate with? If so, what is it and which interfaces are available (for example, AD/LDAP, Entra ID, Okta, Ping, SAML, OIDC, RADIUS)? | The CFS does not mandate integration with a single, pre-designated enterprise identity system. Describe how your solution leverages open standards to support both centralized enterprise federation and survivable, secure local authentication at the tactical edge. |
| 67 | Must it work in disconnected, tactical, or air-gapped environments? What is the expected behavior if the identity service is unreachable? | Yes, the solution must support secure operations and local authentication in disconnected, tactical, or air-gapped environments. When centralized enterprise identity services are unreachable, the expected behavior is survivable local authentication, pre-provisioned/cached trust, configurable perishability, and positive device control. Describe how your solution transition states between connected enterprise federation and disconnected local survival, as well as methods for local credential validation and secure zeroization. |
| 68 | Which roles require MFA: all users, only administrators and Crypto Officers, or only certain operations? | Multi-factor authentication is required for users with administrative privileges. |
| 69 | Are unattended clients, service accounts, APIs, or automated tools in scope? How must those authenticate? | Yes, these are governed as non-person entities and are in scope. Describe how your solution authenticates and authorizes NPE in bandwidth-constrained or disconnected tactical environments, how they are securely provisioned prior to deployment and how they remain survivable when disconnected from centralized enterprise identity services. |
| 70 | What assurance/compliance level is required, including any FIPS, DoD, RMF, STIG, or PKI requirements? | FIPS 140-3 Level 3 validation, DoD NSA certification for High Assurance, RMF artifacts, including STIG implementation, to support Interim Authority to Test and Authority To Operate, and the device's PKI capabilities must support quantum-resistant CNSA2.0 algorithms. |
| 71 | Are local "break-glass" credentials required when the identity provider is unavailable? Who controls and audits their use? | Yes, to prevent administrative lockout during extended Disconnected, Degraded, Intermittent, and Limited operations, the solution must provide a secure, local emergency administrative access capability for the user with administrative privileges as part of its tactical survivability design. Describe how your solution manages transitions between connected enterprise federation and disconnected local survival, as well as methods for local credential validation, session expiration, and tamper-evident auditing. |
| 72 | What audit evidence is required for accreditation: identity, factor used, success/failure, source, session duration, and log export/retention? | In support of RMF accreditation, the solution must generate detailed, audit-compliant event records for all administrative, access, and cryptographic activities. Describe your solution's exact audit log schema, the cryptographic mechanisms securing local logs, and the export protocols supported. |
| 73 | What altitude is required for aviation platform support? | Up to 10,000 feet Above Sea Level. |
| 74 | What are the throughput requirements? | Throughput requirements will be detailed for each product family in their respective Phase 3 performance specifications. |
| 75 | What are the range requirements? | Range requirements will be detailed for each product family in their respective Phase 3 performance specifications. |
| 76 | May we submit a white paper while our JCP approval is pending? | No, JCP approval is required for access to the CUI documents, which contain specifics about requirements for white paper content and submission. |
| 77 | Q22 requires crypto-agility for dynamic algorithm and protocol updates. Will hybrid classical/PQC key establishment be accepted for SBU-E and High Assurance devices during the transition, or must solutions be PQC-only? | Hybrids are not acceptable, PQC-only. |
| 78 | Q21 states FIPS 140-3 Level 2 for SBU-E with Level 3 by 31 DEC 2031. Q82 states Level 3 for both HA and SBU-E against the 31 Dec 2030 objective. Which governs, and what interim evidence (e.g., modules listed as in process on CMVP) is acceptable at the white paper stage? | Objective is delivery to the Government a device with FIPS 140-3 level 3 validated SBU-E module by 31 Dec 2030 to allow over the air performance testing for a fielding decision by end of CY31. |
| 79 | What requirements apply to entropy sources and random number generation in SBU-E and HA devices (e.g., SP 800-90B or ESV validation)? May an externally developed hardware entropy source be incorporated if it holds the required validations? | SBU-E device must implement FIPS 140-3 level 3 validated cryptographic module, any random number generation must utilize entropy sources complying with NIST SP 800-90B and must achieve and maintain ESV through the NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program. High Assurance is subject to NSA cryptographic evaluation and certifiication for the entire cryptographic chain, including design, implementation, and testing of entropy sources and random number generation. Externally developed hardware entropy sources are permitted for the SBU-E device provided that the integrated system successfully obtains FIPS validation and the third-party hardware entropy source maintains the NIST SP 800-90B ESV validation. High Assurance is subject to NSA evaluation and approval. |
| 80 | When a subcontractor supplies a cryptographic or entropy component, may the prime rely on the sub’s existing CAVP/CMVP validations toward the end item’s validation, or must the component be revalidated within the end item? | For SBU-E, the prime may leverage and reference a subcontractor's existing CAVP algorithm certificates and SP 800-90B ESV certificates, or treat as an embedded validated module, but the end-item cryptographic module as a whole must still complete its own CMVP validation. For High Assurance, existing commercial CAVP/CMVP validations cannot be inherited. |
| 81 | Q47 confirms an SCRM framework applies. Do restrictions or additional assessments apply to components from foreign-located or foreign-controlled entities, including subsidiaries of U.S. companies? When will the criteria be released? | Offerors must supply foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) information that identifies foreign financial and technological relationships for evaluation. Vendors ensure that all electronic components, assemblies, and end-items strictly adhere to all applicable U.S. Government/Department of War supply chain security and procurement statutes. |
| 82 | Q72 and Q82 tie PQC viability and NSA sponsorship to ATLAS. Is there a non-CUI reference describing ATLAS entry criteria, timeline and eligibility for components? Q74 left open whether ALT-PNT or timing capability is of interest, so which Section 3 attribute, if any, covers holdover timing or GNSS-denied synchronization? | ATLAS is the single-entry point for new solutions. Following Government sponsor submission of the intake questionnaire and artifact, we expect DoW PQC Directorate response within weeks. Any solution prior to testing and, or, acquisition must secure ATLAS Intake authorization from DoW PQC Directorate. Attribute 3.37 covers GPS-denied environment for a capabilitynot reliant on GPS for timing or synchronization. |
| 83 | Please confirm that an Offeror invited to Phase 3 may include additional products, accessories, configurations, variants, services, and part numbers within the scope of its proposed solution and will not be limited to those specifically identified in its Phase 1 White Paper. | Phase 1 White Papers should describe the Offeror’s in-scope product portfolio and proposed solution at a level sufficient for the Government to evaluate technical merit, schedule/ROM, and viability. An Offeror invited to Phase 3 will receive a subsequent invitation letter that establishes the detailed proposal requirements and the permissible scope of the Phase 3 submission. |
| 84 | Will each single-award IDIQ contract be awarded as the same contract type (i.e. FAR 12, FAR 15, OTA) or does the CFS contemplate varying contract types among the single-awards? | Varying contract types will be contemplated (i.e. FAR 12, FAR 15, OTA) |
| 85 | As the breadth of technical data and computer software deliverables is unknown at this time, is it acceptable for Offerors to include a statement / narrative regarding intellectual property, commercial software license agreements, and/or data rights instead of a full data rights table compliant with DFARS 252.227-7992? | No. A full data rights table compliant with DFARS 252.227-7992 must be submitted with the offer. Per DFARS 252.227-7992(e), failure to submit, complete, or sign the data rights table may render the offer ineligible for award. DFARS 252.227-7989(f) allows the Contractor to identify new data rights assertions under certain circumstances, including where there is new information. |
| 86 | Will the Phase 3 Solution Proposal be identical for all selected Offerors? | The Phase 3 Request for Proposals (RFP) will be the same for all Offerors selected to proceed to Phase 3. However, each Offeror’s Solution Proposal is expected to differ based on its proposed solution, applicable products and services, technical approach, pricing, and ability to meet the Government’s requirements. |
| 87 | Please provide a POC to request a DoD SAFE link. | jennifer.d.anderson57.civ@army.mil ; aaliyah.m.coles.civ@army.mil; douglas.g.thier.civ@army.mil; kathleen.m.smith230.civ@army.mil |
| 88 | Please clarify if each Offeror will receive only one contract instrument or if an Offeror may receive more than one contract instrument for distinct products, services, or scope. | Each Offeror may receive no more than one contract instrument under this CFS. |
| 89 | Please confirm that, if a Table of Contents is included, it does not count towards the 15-page limit. | Table of Contents will not count towards the 15-page limit. |
| 90 | Amendment 3 (October 30) misnumbers from Section 2 onward. Advise if this can be corrected to avoid referencing inconsistency. | The Government is issuing a revision to correct the section numbering. |
| 91 | In section 6.1.1.C.7 the Army requests to provide the following 9 artifacts (A through I) with a caveat that “all compliance documents and certifications” can be submitted as attachments and not count towards the 15 page count. Could you clarify if all 9 items fit in this caveat or if only a subset are considered compliance and certification artifacts. If the later, could you call out which specific letter items fit that criteria? | The following are considered compliance and vertification artifacts: b, c, d |
| 92 | In section 6.1.1.C.7.e the Army references a plan for Post Quantum compliance with CNSA Suite 2.0 by January 1 2027, is this directly associated with the DoW PCQ Transition Systems Inventory questionnaire currently being worked between radio vendors, Army TCS, and DoW representatives? If not, could you provide more details on how to achieve compliance by this date. | No. After 31 Dec 2026, the Goverment cannot procure any National Security System hardware that is not capable of supporting CNSA2.0 post-quantum algorithms through software upgrade to utilize them by 31 Dec 2031. Describe your phased plan to achieve FIPS 140-3 level 3 validation by 31 Dec 2030. |
| 93 | Will the CSO be available to other than Army customers? | Yes. The Government anticipates that resulting award vehicles may be available for use by other Department of War organizations and customers, subject to the terms and conditions of the resulting award, applicable authorities, and the ordering organization’s requirements. |
| 94 | Can pricing on this CSO be negotiated post award for higher quantity programs of record? | No, The Government will negotiate pricing, as appropriate, during the Phase 3 RFP process and before award. |
| 95 | Is this CSO restricted only to radios or can we include other EMSO devices? (Spectrum Sensors, Programmable EMSO Support devices, etc) | This CFS is limited to tactical communication systems. Standalone EMSO devices, such as spectrum sensors or programmable EMSO support devices, are not within scope. |
| 96 | What methods will the Agency use to select the corresponding contract instrument (i.e. FAR-based versus OTA instrument)? | The Government will determine the appropriate award instrument for each selected solution based on the specific requirement, proposed approach, and applicable statutory, regulatory, and AOS W9128Z-25-S-A002 requirements. |
| 97 | What authority will the Agency use to provide an OTA instrument if selected? | If the Government determines an OT is appropriate, 10 U.S.C. § 4021 is the authority for research activities or 10 U.S.C. § 4022 for prototype projects. A follow-on production OT may be used only when the statutory conditions for such an award are satisfied. The Government will identify the applicable authority and award instrument based on the offeror and proposed solution |
| 98 | CSO Announcement Page 5: What are minimum expectations on memory and computer? | Offerors are encouraged to propose the optimal memory and compute specifications that are appropriate and necessary to fully support the functionality, waveforms, and security characteristics, to include crypto-agility for software upgrade of both post-quantum algorithms and protocols, of their proposed solution. |
| 99 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Are there specific waveforms to support, if yes are they of equal importance? | Waveform requirements detailed for each product family in their respective Phase 3 performance specifications. |
| 100 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Are there specific frequency bands they want the analog frontend to support? | VHF 30 to 88MHz for continued interoperability with SINCGARS. |
| 101 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Are there specific number of inputs/outputs they want the SDR to support? | No. Describe your solution's physical and digital input/output port configurations and how they support the proposed technical capabilities. |
| 102 | CSO Announcement Page 5: What is the expected transmit power? | Transmit power requirements will be detailed for each product family in their respective Phase 3 performance specifications. |
| 103 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Is the Open Architecture Desired Attribute defined by MOSA/SOSA/CMOSS/MORA standards? | No. Describe how your solution achieves the broader objectives of open architecture, such as software upgradeable crypto-agility, rapid scaling, and seamless integration into the Army's networks and frameworks. |
| 104 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Government states "Solutions must address either NSA High Assurance certification or Sensitive but Unclassified - Encrypted (SBU-E) qualification and must include a Post-Quantum Cryptography plan achieving NIST validation by December 31." We want to confirm that the USG's objective is to have Post-Quantum Cryptography tactical communications. If there is an opportunity accelerate achieving this, would Government support leap-frogging SBU-E?" | Government wants to procure a tactical communication device that is software upgradeable for both post-quantum algorithms and protocols. |
| 105 | CSO Announcement Page 5: Under Product Characteristics: “Product Characteristics and Desired Attributes Include the Following...”. Could the Government please rank order or group the characteristics in order or priority or preference for the Government? | Threshold SBU-E priority attributes for Section 3: 3.2, 3.3, 3.37 of CfS document. The Government does not intent to rank or prioritize the list. |
| 106 | Consistent with DFARS 227.7208-4 (b)(2) Applicability (DEVIATION 2026-O0036), would the Government consider updating the scope of capabilities to state, ""Technical data related to commercial products shall be delivered subject to DFARS 252.227-7990 (DEVIATION 2026-O0036). Commercial computer software and commercial computer software documentation shall be provided under the license customarily provided to the public (DFARS 227.7202-3). DFARS 252.227-7990 (DEVIATION 2026-O0036) shall in included in subcontracts as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this clause.”" | The Government confirms that DFARS 227.7202-3; DFARS 227.7208-4; and DFARS 252.227-7990 (DEVIATION 2026-O0036) are applicable. |
| 107 | CSO Announcement Page 4: Does the Government seek solutions which do not include printed circuit boards sourced from China? If not, will the Government add a requirement that any product/solutions SHALL NOT include printed circuit boards sourced from the People’s Republic of China (including Hong Kong and Macao)? | The CSO does not impose unique restrictions on printed circuit boards beyond those mandated by federal law and Department of War regulations. However, any contract or agreement resulting from this CSO must comply with all applicable statutory sourcing restrictions, Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses, and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement clauses in effect at the time of award. This includes any active or pending restrictions on the procurement of printed circuit boards from covered countries (e.g., the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macao) as mandated by National Defense Authorization Act requirements and their implementing regulations. |
| 108 | CSO Announcement Page 2: Is the Call for Solutions limited to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) acting as prime contractors, or will resellers, distributors, and similar non-OEM channels be eligible? | The Army’s preference is for OEMs to serve as prime contractors to minimize pass‑through costs and ensure direct access to technical expertise. That said, we remain open to creative teaming arrangements if a non‑OEM can demonstrate clear value and an efficient path to meeting the Army’s requirements. |
| 109 | CSO Announcement Page 2: We kindly request that the Government confirm the submission date and time for white papers. We believe that Amendment 3 to the CSO extended the submission to December 14 and this is still valid. | The Government confirms that the white paper submission deadline remains 14 December, as established by Amendment 3. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .