Attachment 3 Questions and Answers.pdf

Q1. Because there is a Program of Record (POR) for a Geolocation Suite which covers the bands requested by the 16th, we are confused why the 16th would be purchasing an additional suite without using the POR to make the purchase. The 16th is the operator for the POR. This would be like a fighter squadron deciding they don’t want the F35, they are going to get an A10 instead. Is this even legal? Has the POR approved the purchase? Do they need to?

A1. There are no legal concerns here; this is an innovation project driven by force-wide innovation initiatives. A conversation with our SPO has identified that this is an entirely different system, so this is not governed by our POR.

Q2. Clin 2 states Military SATCOM Band upgrade. However, the bands requested in Paragraph X.(a)(1)(ii)(A) which states “Provide a two satellite geolocation system for EMI resolution in UHF, C, X, Ku and Ka bands” are, with the exception of UHF, commercial bands not military bands. What are the frequencies that need to be delivered to ensure appropriate bands are covered?

A2. By military SATCOM Bands, we are specifying two things: 1. the ability to provide geolocation support to Military Satellites such as MUOS, DSCS, WGS, UFO, or FleetSat who use UHF, X, and Ka bands without loss of generality; and 2. For military assets that leverage commercially owned bandwidth such as RPAs, comm squadrons, etc which often use C and Ku bands.

Q3. Paragraph X.(a)(1)(ii)(C) states “Have Multi-Calibrator Geolocation, and automatic Geolocation capability”. How many calibrators are required? Two would be multiple but will not satisfy commercial geolocation system requirements.

A3. The system must be able to use five calibrators in geolocation. In practice, if the geolocation suite can meet the accuracy requirements using less than five, great -- but it must be able to use five or more at operator discretion and per availability of calibrators. (See update in RFQ amendment 1)

Q4. What are the automatic triggers for geolocation?

A4. Automatic geolocation should trigger based on detection of EMI based on changes in signal modulation, signal SNR, signal EbNo, and/or signal EsNo.

Q5. Are there taskings that trigger the geolocation?

A5. A tasking from an appropriate tasking authority should not itself trigger geolocation procedures, only EMI detection should trigger geolocation.

Q6. How many signals need to be geolocated simultaneously?

A6. Ten or more.

Q7. Is there as manual geolocation function or only automatic?

A7. A manual geolocation function must exist.

Q8. Paragraph X.(a)(1)(ii)(D) States “Work with current KRATOS RT LOGIC Monics brand software and hardware without causing duplication of data entry”. What does “current” constitute? Will the Government make the “Current” software available for system testing?

What is the data that should not be duplicated? Will the government provide design details for Monics to ensure compatibility or at least integration details?

A8. Must be able to ingest SQL Server Database Primary Data Files (.MDF) Updated in RFQ Amendment 1.

Q9. Paragraph X.(a)(1)(ii)(E) States “Must have DISA ATO approval”. ATOs depend on implementation of hardware and software as well as technical and non-technical requirements which are both system related and site/unit/policy related. Therefore capabilities cannot be delivered with ATO approval. Can you please restate the requirement to something that can be delivered?

A9. The system provided must have demonstrated a capability to acquire an ATO with at least one site/unit/policy combination.

Q10. The SOW is an exact description of the Kratos satID system. Is this a real competition or simply a process to award to Kratos?

A10. The Government’s stance is to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable. A search of the SOW does not mention KRATOS or satID anywhere within it. Rather, the SOW identifies performance and operational requirements that the system needs to meet or exceed.

If your proposed system can meet or exceed the requirements established in the RFQ it will be determined technically acceptable. If your proposed solution does not meet or exceed the requirements in the RFQ, then the solution will be technically unacceptable. A sources sought (# FA251721Q9004) was posted on 9/2/21 and several vendors indicated interest and capability. Vendors are cautioned that if they cannot meet or exceed the requirements, they will be considered technically unacceptable.

SOW section 1.1 Q11. Does the geolocation system need to connect directly to UHF, C, X, Ku and Ka signals, or will the interface to the system from the antenna terminal equipment be at L-Band for all bands?

A11. L-Band

Q12. Is it true that the antenna terminal equipment is provided by 16 SPCS, not by the vendor under this RFQ?

A12. 16 SPCS will provide the antenna terminal equipment.

Q13. This section refers to EMI resolution via the geolocation system. Are you intending to actually resolve the EMI with the geolocation system, or do you intend that the geolocation system provides data that aids other processes in actually resolving the EMI?

A13. We intend that the geolocation system provides data that aids other processes in actually resolving the EMI.

Q14. Should our response include shipment to 16 SPCS, or will 16 SPCS pick up the system from the vendor?

A14. If we can pick up the equipment in Colorado Springs without incurring a shipping cost, we will pick it up. Otherwise, please include shipping costs.

SOW section 1.3

Q15. We recommend that the rack include 4” of cabling space in front, and 4” of cabling space in back of the deepest equipment. With the deepest equipment at 28”, this could mean 36” rack depth. Is this allowable?

A15. While operational, the rack will be open in the front and back allowing sufficient airflow – there will also be two inches above, below, and on the left and right sides of the equipment for air circulation.

Q16. If the 16 SPCS decides on two transit cases, are Connection Interface Panels between the racks desired?

A16. Yes they are desired

Q17. Is a 250 lb. system allowable?

A17. Yes

Q18. For section 1.3.2.2, please articulate what “well-defined” means.

A18. “Well-defined” means calibrator locations are known to be accurate, reference emitter locations are known to be accurate, the set of calibrators to be used in the geolocation scenario is defined, and operators have accurately input all necessary parameters for geolocation.

Q19. Section 1.3.2.3 implies signal cancellation capabilities within the 14 RU rack size requirement. Are such signal cancellation capabilities required?

A19. No, signal cancellation is not required at this time.

Q20. Sections 1.3.2.4 and 1.3.2.5 require advanced signal analysis capabilities. Are these required?

A20. These are not required.

Q21. Please clarify the requirement for “variety of satellite location files.” Is the 16 SPCS looking for particular file types, formats and content?

A21. At minimum TLEs must be able to be ingested from commercial entities like CelesTrak. If possible, we also want to automatically ingest satellite position/velocity data provided by military organizations like the 18 SPCS.

Q22. For section 1.3.2.9, is it allowable to require type-in data for system setup, or must the system be fully controlled via the mouse as implied here?

A22. Type-in data for system setup is allowable.

Q23. For section 1.3.2.11, is a wizard-driven system vice context-sensitive user’s guide acceptable? A23. Yes