Attachment 4_Previous Q_A (for reference only).pdf

PKA-Giant Voice Equipment -6 CS

FA481426Q0072

Vendor Questions

1. What make and model are the existing speaker arrays?

Hyper Spike MA-1-5S TAN P/N 90105A – 801-02

2. Existing siren pole height to top of the speakers.

50 Feet

3. Distance from each siren pole to the GFE electrical panel, and any obstructions (road, sidewalk, etc) that may be in the path?

The Government does not maintain detailed measurements of conduit paths, distances from each siren pole to the GFE electrical panels, or any potential obstructions such as roads, sidewalks, or terrain features.

4. Can picture be provided of the current siren speaker arrays, the poles the GV stations are on, and the speaker enclosures?

Reference attachments 5 & 6

5. SOW 3.2 Para 1- Pg 1 - Section 3.2 states the performance period "shall be determined based on the proposed schedule and actual contract award date" but does not specify a maximum period of performance or a required completion date. Is there a government-required completion deadline or not-to-exceed period of performance? What is the anticipated award date?

Yes, there is a maximum period of performance. Offerors must propose a performance schedule that does not exceed 60 calendar days from the date of contract award. The exact contract award date is currently unknown, but award is anticipated to occur no later than (NLT) 30 September 2026. Furthermore, the proposed schedule must detail the offeror's technical approach to maintaining overall Giant Voice system operability throughout the installation period. The schedule and plan must demonstrate how the contractor will ensure that only the specific Central Control Station (CCS) or Remote Siren Station (RSS) being replaced is taken offline at any given time.

6. SOW 3.3 Para 1- Pg 1 - Are there any mission-critical periods, exercises, inspections, or windows during which full system downtime must be avoided? What are the

Government’s preferences or requirements for maintaining partial or full system operability during the phased RSS and CCS replacements?

No specific mission-critical blackout periods are identified in the SOW. However, the Government requires the contractor to maintain overall system operability throughout installation, allowing only the specific CCS or RSS being replaced to be taken offline.

Any planned outage must be coordinated and approved in advance, and the Government may impose additional blackout windows as mission needs dictate.

7. SOW 4.16 Para 1 Pg A-1 - Section 4.16 references compliance with Federal labor laws but does not specifically reference the Service Contract Act (SCA) or Davis-Bacon Act. Can the Government confirm whether SCA or Davis-Bacon wage determinations apply to the labor performed under this contract?

The SOW requires compliance with all Federal labor laws but does not explicitly reference the Service Contract Act (SCA) or Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). Based on the nature of the work—which includes construction, installation, electrical infrastructure, and physical modifications to Government real property—the Government anticipates that the Davis- Bacon Act (DBA) will apply. The Service Contract Act (SCA) is not expected to apply.

Reference attachment 3, Davis-Bacon Act WD # FL20260208.

8. SOW 5.2 Para 1 Pg A-2 - Can the Government provide a detailed inventory or list of the current Giant Voice system equipment, including make/model, quantities, locations, and condition (to the extent known) of the CCSs, CWs, RSSs, speaker arrays, control cabinets, radio base stations, antennas, power supplies/UPS, and any other components?Reference attachments 3 & 4

9. SOW 5.2 Para 1 Pg A-2 - What is the height of the existing poles where the RSS units are mounted?

45 feet from the base to the top of the pole; 50 feet from the base of the pole to the top of the speaker.

10. SOW 5.2 Para 1 Pg A-2 - Are as-built drawings, wiring diagrams, pole structural analyses or load ratings, radio frequency assignments, and current system configuration documentation (including any existing AtHoc integration points) available for review?

Reference attachments 5 & 6

11. SOW 5.2.3.2 Para 1 Pg A-3 - Section 1 (Scope) states the replacement shall consist of "3 central control stations (CCSs)," while Section 5.2.3.2 specifies installation of "four (4) new CCUs" at the Primary CP, Alternate CP, Radio Shop, and BDOC. Additionally, the

Background section references "four (4) CCSs." Can the Government confirm the correct number of CCSs required — three (3) or four (4)?

The Government confirms the following system architecture:

• Central Control Stations (CCSs) A CCS refers to a server-based control node.

MacDill AFB requires three (3) CCS servers.

• Central Control Units (CCUs) A CCU refers to an operator workstation (client console). MacDill AFB requires four (4) CCU client workstations.

SOW contains a discrepancy regarding the number of Central Control Stations (CCSs).

Section 1 (Scope) references three CCSs, while the Background section references four.

The correct requirement is three (3) CCS servers and four (4) CCU operator workstations. The SOW will be updated to reflect this corrected architecture.

12. SOW 5.2.3.5.3 Para 1 Pg A-6 - Is there any existing issues with the radio coverage to any of the RSS locations? Can the Government provide any existing radio path survey data, line-of-sight analysis, or known obstructions between CCS and RSS locations to confirm no changes need to be made to the radio coverage?

The Government does not have any current radio path survey data, line-of-sight analysis, or updated RF propagation studies for the existing Giant Voice system. The Government is not aware of any unresolved radio coverage issues at the RSS locations; however, the existing system has experienced intermittent performance degradation, and the Government cannot guarantee that all RF paths remain optimal.

In accordance with the SOW, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to perform all required RF testing, including verification of transmit/receive signal strength, line-of-sight conditions, antenna alignment, and any obstructions that may impact radio communications between CCS and RSS locations. The Contractor shall ensure the new system provides reliable end-to-end UHF communications as required by SOW 5.2.3.5.3.

13. SOW 5.2.5 Para 1 Pg A-8 - Can the Government provide available interface specifications, API documentation or data exchange formats for the existing AtHoc NCAS system? What specific functions must the new GV system support through this integration (e.g., message initiation, zone selection/control, status feedback to AtHoc, remote activation)?

The Government does not possess or maintain any proprietary API documentation, interface specifications, or data exchange format guides for the AtHoc NCAS system beyond what is provided directly by the AtHoc vendor (BlackBerry). The Government will facilitate coordination between the Contractor and the AtHoc vendor as required by the SOW, but no Government-furnished technical interface documentation is available.

In accordance with SOW 5.2.5, the Contractor is responsible for providing all hardware, software, and configuration necessary to ensure full interoperability between the new Giant Voice (GV) system and the existing AtHoc NCAS environment.

The new GV system must support, at a minimum, the following AtHoc-driven functions:

• Message initiation from AtHoc for both tones and voice messages

• Zone selection and control when AtHoc initiates an alert

• Remote activation of the GV system from AtHoc terminals

• Transmission of pre-recorded messages initiated from AtHoc

• Real-time activation of tones initiated from AtHoc

• Status/health feedback from the GV system to AtHoc, if supported by the vendor’s integration method

• Seamless failover behavior consistent with AtHoc’s supported integration model

The Contractor shall coordinate directly with the AtHoc vendor to obtain any required interface specifications, licensing, or integration support necessary to achieve full operational interoperability.

14. SOW 5.2.8 Para 1 Pg A-9 - Section 5.2.8 states "Not Applicable" for Override Capability.

However, Section 5.2.4 (System Features) requires the CCSs to "execute all GV activations in the event there is a computer or software failure," which implies a manual override capability. Can the Government clarify whether any form of override or manual activation capability is required outside of software-based control?

The Government does not require a separate, standalone manual override device or hardware-based activation mechanism outside of the standard CCU/CCS software environment. The reference in Section 5.2.4 to executing activations during a computer or software failure refers to the system’s internal redundancy and failover capabilities, not to a physical manual override switch.

The requirement is that the GV system must remain capable of activation through its redundant CCS architecture in the event one CCU or workstation becomes unavailable. This is a software-based failover, not a manual hardware override.

Therefore:

• No external manual override panel is required.

• No physical push-button activation station is required.

• No out-of-band hardware activation device is required.

The system must simply ensure that:

• If one CCU fails, another CCU can still activate the system.

• If one CCS server fails, another CCS server can still process activations.

• The system maintains alerting capability through its redundant server architecture, as required by Section 5.2.4.

Section 5.2.8 (“Override Capability – Not Applicable”) remains correct.

15. SOW 15.2 Para 1 Pg A-12 - Section 5.15.2 requires training both before and after final acceptance, with additional training "not to exceed more than twice in a calendar year or once on a semiannual basis." Can the Government clarify the total duration of the post-acceptance training obligation? Is this limited to the warranty period, or does it extend beyond?

The post-acceptance training requirement applies only for the duration of the warranty period. The Government does not require the Contractor to provide recurring training beyond the warranty period unless separately contracted.

Section 5.15.2 establishes that:

• Initial training occurs prior to final acceptance.

• Follow-on training may be requested after final acceptance, but

• No more than twice per calendar year (or once semiannually).

• This recurring training obligation is limited to the warranty period.

After the warranty period expires, no additional training is required unless procured under a separate contract action.

16. SOW Appendix A Para 1 Pg B-1 - Figure C-1 shows the intelligible voice coverage requirement as a map with coverage circles, but does not specify a minimum sound pressure level (SPL) in dB(A) or dB(C) at the coverage boundary, nor a Speech Transmission Index (STI) threshold. Can the Government specify the minimum SPL and/or STI values that define "intelligible voice" for acceptance testing purposes?

Additionally, what is the maximum acceptable SPL at the nearest base perimeter point adjacent to civilian communities?

The Government does not prescribe a specific minimum Sound Pressure Level (SPL), Speech Transmission Index (STI), or maximum perimeter SPL within the SOW. The intelligible voice requirement is defined by the coverage areas shown in Appendix B, and the Contractor is responsible for designing a system that achieves intelligible voice communication throughout those areas.

To support system design and acceptance testing, the Government provides the following clarifications:

1. Minimum Intelligibility Requirement (STI)

The Government requires that the system achieve intelligible voice throughout the coverage areas shown in Appendix B. For acceptance testing, the following threshold applies:

• Minimum STI: 0.45 (STIpa) (Equivalent to “Fair” intelligibility per IEC 60268-16)

This threshold is consistent with industry norms for outdoor mass notification systems and is acceptable for emergency voice messaging in open-air environments.

2. Minimum SPL Requirement

The Government does not mandate a specific SPL value; however, the system must:

• Provide sufficient SPL to achieve the required STI under typical ambient conditions.

• Overcome local background noise, which at MacDill AFB is generally in the 55–65 dB(A) range depending on aircraft activity and location.

As a design guideline (not a prescriptive requirement):

• Outdoor mass notification systems typically require ≥ 70–75 dB(A) at the listener location to achieve intelligible voice.

The Contractor is responsible for determining the SPL necessary to meet the STI requirement.

3. Maximum SPL at Base Perimeter (Community Noise Considerations)

The Government does not specify a maximum SPL at the installation boundary.

However:

• The Contractor shall minimize sound bleed into adjacent civilian communities, as required in Section 5.2.3.4 (Acoustic Coverage).

• The Contractor shall design the system to avoid unnecessary nuisance noise while still meeting intelligibility requirements on base.

The Government will review the Contractor’s acoustic modeling to ensure reasonable mitigation of off-base sound spillover.

4. Contractor Responsibilities

The Contractor shall:

• Perform acoustic modeling to demonstrate compliance with the intelligibility requirement.

• Validate STI and SPL performance during acceptance testing.

• Provide documentation showing that off-base SPL has been minimized to the extent practicable while meeting on-base intelligibility requirements.

In summary

• Minimum STI: 0.45 (required)

• Minimum SPL: Not specified; must be sufficient to achieve STI ≥ 0.45

• Maximum perimeter SPL: Not specified; must be minimized

• Acceptance testing: STI-based, not SPL-based

17. The SOW states, “the system has experienced progressive degradation in performance, reliability, and maintainability, resulting in intermittent operational failures and an increasing frequency of manual intervention to initiate alerts”. Can you provide any information regarding if annual preventive maintenance was performed?

The Government does not have complete historical documentation confirming whether annual preventive maintenance (PM) was consistently performed on the existing Giant Voice system. Some maintenance activities were conducted over the life of the system;

however, the available records are incomplete and do not provide a full year-by-year PM history.

The system’s current degraded condition—referenced in the SOW—reflects a combination of factors, including:

• Aging and unsupported OEM components

• Environmental wear on outdoor equipment

• Intermittent failures requiring manual intervention

• Limited availability of replacement parts

Because the OEM is no longer in business and sustainment support has been inconsistent, the Government cannot certify that PM was performed in accordance with any specific schedule or standard.

The Contractor should therefore assume that:

• No reliable PM baseline exists, and

• All components must be treated as end-of-life for purposes of system replacement, testing, and validation.

18. Can you please indicate what portions of the infrastructure has reached the end of life and are not supported by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM)?

The SOW makes clear that all major electronic and communication components of the existing Giant Voice system have reached end-of-life (EoL) and are no longer supported by the OEM. Magana Sine, MS 4024 power inverter/charger, backup batteries, several additional circuit boards that makeup the unit.

19. Can you provide a document that lists all the Giant Voice pole/tower locations, with a description of the construction of the pole? Wood pole with class and type, steel, direct burial or concrete footing, documents relating to concrete or other types of poles, with all pertinent information.

Reference attachments 5 & 6

20. Do you have photos of each location identifying the siren/giant voice head, inside of the controller, battery box, antenna, any important construction notes?

Reference attachments 5 & 6

21. Do you have locations and photos of the three (3) proposed command and control, where the equipment is supposed to go and of the existing or proposed antenna placement?

Reference attachments 5 & 6

22. Are any of the sirens building mounted or on roof tops?

No

23. Does the existing system provide adequate coverage of the base and the areas of concern?

Yes

24. Did the Government, or is the Government, scheduling a pre-proposal job walk to help identify any issues and answer any unknown questions?

No

25. Could you please confirm the notice ID? On SAM.gov, you have FA481426Q0072 and then on the first page of the combine synopsis, you have FA481423Q0022. We just want to confirm we put the proper RFQ # on our proposal.

Correct # is FA481426Q0072

26. Under the CLIN schedule, brand name or equal, you have yes. Was there a specific manufacture of the GV system you are looking to go with? We do not see it detailed out in the scope of work.

The Government is not specifying a particular manufacturer for the Giant Voice (GV) system. The requirement is intentionally written as to allow full and open competition among qualified mass notification system providers.

The SOW defines functional and performance requirements, not a specific OEM. Any system that meets or exceeds those requirements—including intelligible voice coverage, AtHoc NCAS integration, RF communication performance, environmental durability, and system redundancy—is acceptable.

The Government does not have a preferred vendor, brand, or OEM for this procurement.

Contractors may propose any compliant solution that:

• Meets all technical requirements in the SOW

• Integrates with AtHoc NCAS as required

• Provides the required CCS/CCU/RSS functionality

• Satisfies all testing, training, and warranty obligations

All proposed systems will be evaluated based on compliance with the SOW, technical merit, and overall best value to the Government. The CLIN Schedule has been updated to reflect “N/A” under brand name or equal.

27. Does the Giant Voice system need to be capable of integrating with the Motorola LMR system currently at MacDill AFB for potential future interoperability?

The Government does not require the new Giant Voice (GV) system to integrate with the Motorola Land Mobile Radio (LMR) system. No LMR-to-GV interoperability, interface, or activation pathway is required under the current SOW.

The only required external system integration is with the AtHoc NCAS platform, as specified in Section 5.2.5.

Contractors may propose optional capabilities that exceed the SOW requirements;

however:

• LMR integration is not required,

• LMR integration will not be evaluated as part of technical compliance, and

• LMR integration should not be priced or assumed unless explicitly proposed as a voluntary enhancement.

The Government has no current requirement for LMR-based activation, monitoring, or control of the GV system.

28. Will best value be a determining factor in the award, considering future-proofing infrastructure, longevity/sustainment, and interoperability with existing systems?

Reference Addendum to RFO 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services on the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation. The Basis of Award reflects the use of LPTA procedures and has been revised to detail what must be addressed to be determined technically acceptable.

29. Does the Giant Voice system need to be capable of integrating with the Motorola LMR system currently at MacDill AFB for potential future interoperability?

See question 27 and answer.

30. Will the government provide a 1-week extension to the due date, from the date question responses are issued?

Solicitation date has been extended. Quotes are now due by 29 Jun 2026 NLT 1000 EST.