Atch 3 TDL Software Question-Comment Matrix - Govt Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA489026Q0016
About this file
This file is a Government Response matrix to offeror questions and comments regarding solicitation FA489026Q0016 for Tactical Data Link (TDL) Interoperability Software. The document addresses ten substantive clarifications requested by offerors concerning the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, Performance Work Statement, and associated requirements.
Key clarifications provided by the Government include: (1) removal of confusing "brand name or equal" language, with confirmation that any solution meeting Performance Work Statement salient characteristics will be evaluated equally; (2) authorization for authorized resellers to propose the publisher's product with a letter of supply, provided a complete proposal with full pricing is submitted; (3) confirmation that export format specifications and data migration requirements are addressed in PWS Section 3.1.2.2 and 3.1.6, including support for XML, HTML, and Microsoft Excel formats; (4) definition of "Kneepad" summary as a software-generated report formatted for pilot kneepads; (5) identification of Software and Application Certification Assessments (SACA) as the substantiation path for software not currently on Government Networks, with internal testing and results evaluation; (6) confirmation that cloud SaaS solutions are permitted if compatible with DoD networks, with unclassified baseline classification and optional Risk Management Framework completion; (7) identification of the incumbent contractor as Interoperable Systems Group operating eSMART (electronic Systems Management and Requirements Tool Set) under contract FA489024C0012; (8) clarification that mandatory case studies must specifically demonstrate tactical data link and MIL-STD-6016 processing capabilities; (9) specification that the 120 required licenses are device-bound rather than named-user, concurrent-user, or floating licenses; and (10) confirmation that evaluation will be based solely on expressly stated solicitation requirements and salient characteristics without reference to a specific incumbent baseline product.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| FA489026Q0016 Tactical Data Link Software | ||||||||
| Offerors | Government Only | |||||||
| Question # | Document | |||||||
| HELMS, THOMAS M CIV USAF ACC ACC AMIC/PKAB: Is this from the solicitation, PWS, or an Attachment | Page # | Paragraph # | Offeror Comment/Question | |||||
| HELMS, THOMAS M CIV USAF ACC ACC AMIC/PKAB: What is the comment/question? Is there a typo, concern, or error? | Offeror Recommendation/Response | |||||||
| HELMS, THOMAS M CIV USAF ACC ACC AMIC/PKAB: What do you recommend to correct the issue? | Disposition | Comments | ||||||
| 1 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Paragraph 2 states the requested item is not a "brand name or equal" item, and in the same paragraph refers to "quoting a product other than the product indicated herein" and to "the requested brand name TDL capability." No product or brand name appears in the Combined Synopsis, the Performance Work Statement, or the Provisions and Clauses attachment. Will the Government identify the product it is referring to, or confirm that no specific product is named and that any solution meeting the PWS salient characteristics will be evaluated on equal terms? | Amend paragraph 2 to either name the referenced product or remove the references to "the product indicated herein" and "the requested brand name TDL capability," so all offerors evaluate against the same baseline. | Concur: Solicitation confuses "brand name or equal" and not brand name requirement. | 1. Revised Section 1.1.2. to remove "...supporting any brand name descritions" |
2. Revised Section 2. to remove all brand name information
3. Added Clarification that the requirement calls for an existing software solution.
| 2 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Will the Government accept a proposal submitted by an authorized reseller or channel partner of the COTS product, supported by a letter of supply or authorization from the software publisher, or does the Government require that the proposal be submitted by the software publisher directly? | Confirm in an amendment that an authorized reseller may propose the publisher’s product with a letter of supply, consistent with FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisition. | Concur: Solicitation does not stipulate an authorized reseller solution. | Authorized resellers can propose for this solicitation and should provide a complete proposal (with full pricing) in accordance with this solicitation by the requested timeline, in addition to the Letter of Supply. Requests that are not complete will not be accepted. |
| 3 | Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement | 4 | 3.2 (Data Migration Support) | Paragraph 3.2 requires the solution to migrate an entire existing database of platform specifications in a single action and to produce a pre-migration difference report. Migration in a single action depends on the schema and export format of the Government’s current system. Will the Government publish the current database schema, an export sample, or the name and version of the incumbent system, so that offerors can substantiate migration capability? | Publish the current export format specification or a representative sanitized data sample as an amendment attachment. | Concur: Export format were provided in the PWS. See Question #7 for incumbent information. | PWS Section 3.1.2.2. states 'Platform Data: The software shall provide multiple pathways for ingesting platform implementation data, including manual entry via a unified display, automated import from pre-defined Microsoft Excel formats, and import from internal system templates. Section 3.1.6. adds "The software shall be capable of exporting data in open, non-proprietary, and machine-readable formats, including at a minimum XML, HTML, and Microsoft Excel (CSV and XLSX)." |
| 4 | Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement | 3 | 3.1.4 (Interoperability Evaluation) | Paragraph 3.1.4 requires generation of "Kneepad" summaries. This term appears to reference a specific output format rather than a general capability. Will the Government define the required content and format of a "Kneepad" summary, or provide a sample, so that offerors can demonstrate compliance? | Provide a sample output or a format definition as an amendment attachment. | Concur: Solicitation does not define "kneepad" | A "kneepad" summary is a software-generated report or file format designed to be printed or digitally loaded onto a pilot's kneepad. |
| 5 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | Table 3 (Requirement Information) and paragraph 2 | Paragraph 2 states that no testing of software not currently available on Government Networks will be authorized, and that the Government may deem a product not sufficient if it cannot verify an equal product. Under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable evaluation, this appears to limit acceptability to software already resident on Government Networks. Will the Government describe the method by which an offeror whose product is not currently on a Government Network can establish technical acceptability? | Identify an acceptable substantiation path, for example vendor documentation review, a virtual demonstration, or a government reference installation, and state it in an amendment. | Concur: Solicitation does not detail path for software use on government network. | Software must have a government sponsor to pursue Software and Application Certification Assesments (SACA) evaluation. Testing is done internally with results provided to SACA personnel for evaluation. |
| 6 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Please identify the authorized deployment environment for the software, including whether a vendor-hosted commercial cloud SaaS solution is permitted, the applicable network classification and impact level, required ATO or reciprocity status, and any offline or disconnected-operation requirements. | None provided | Concur: Solitation does not dictate environment, network classification, or ATO. | Cloud SaaS is permitted if compatible with DoW networks. Baseline network classification should be unclassified with the option to raise classification should inputs dictate. Software may be required to complete Risk Management Framework. |
| 7 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Please provide the legacy product name and version, database technology or schema, approximate record and attachment volumes, available export formats, and representative de-identified data or schemas; also, please clarify the objective acceptance criteria for “single-action” migration and the required pre-migration conflict report. | None provided | Concur: Incumbent info was not provided | The incumbent contractor is Interoperable Systems Group with their software 'electronic Systems Management and Requirements Tool Set' (eSMART), under contract FA489024C0012. No other information can be provided. |
| 8 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Must the mandatory case studies demonstrate prior operational use specifically for DoD tactical-data-link interoperability and MIL-STD-6016 processing, or may offerors substantiate these capabilities through an operational enterprise deployment in a comparably complex standards-management environment? | None provided | Concur. Solicitation requires clarification of "these specific functions" in paragraph 5.1.2. | Because this solicitation is specific to tactical data link MIL-STD documentation, the case study must demonstrate this specific use case. |
| 9 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | Please clarify whether the 120 individual licenses are named-user, concurrent-user, device-bound, or network-floating licenses, and whether licenses may be reassigned among authorized Government users during each period of performance. | None provided | Concur. Solicitation does not identify license type. | The requested 120 individual licenses are for device-bound licenses. |
| 10 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 3 | 2 (INSTRUCTIONS) | The instructions state that this is not a “brand name or equal” acquisition but also refer to products other than “the product indicated herein” and require proof of an “equal” product. Please identify any reference product or incumbent capability baseline and confirm that evaluation will be based solely on the requirements and salient characteristics expressly included in the solicitation. | None provided | Concur: Solicitation confuses "brand name or equal" and not brand name requirement. | See Question #1 |
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .