Vendor Questions and Government Responses 4.docx

- The government specifies requirements for MID-JTRS only, but states no requirement for the rack to be able to exchange between MIDS LVT-1 BU1 or BU2 and MIDS-J terminals. We assume this is not a requirement. Is this correct?

MIDS-J terminal is the only requirement for the system. However if a COTS product is being quoted that is capable of other devices, that is acceptable. No additional costs should be required to modify the system to make it exclusively a MIDS-J system.

- Although not specifically expressed, it appears as though you would like integrated dual monitors with keyboard and mouse as part of the THC as opposed to separate monitors or no monitors at all. Is that correct?

Keyboard, mouse, and monitors are not required. Currently a Host system is deployed that should be compatible using the 1553 connection and the HMIG Ethernet connection.

- Nothing we deliver within the rack will be COMSEC. As a result, we do not feel paragraph 1.1.20 applies to us. That said, once terminals are loaded into the rack, it will contain COMSEC. We assume the government will affix whatever labels are deemed appropriate when that occurs. Is that correct?

This is correct. This section is included only as instructions if the quoted system has COMSEC when sold.

- Regarding paragraph 1.1.24, we assume that the government is not talking about the actual wall plug, but rather items such as the external RF connectors. Is this correct?

All connectors mounted to the external of the case shall be protected from water and exposure damage when not in use. This does not pertain to connections that are internal to the case and accessible with the covers removed.

- Regarding paragraph 1.1.37- On occasion, the system software monitoring the terminal, and running in conjunction with the terminal rack, will receive thermal overload temperature warnings from the terminal which will result in a fault notification with both visual and audio alarms. Is this what is meant by your question? Or, on the other hand, are you looking for a separate device within the Terminal Rack that will provide the temperature notifications/alarms?

The designed monitoring system described is sufficient.

- Terminal rack equipment can certainly be put into TEMPEST (paragraph 1.1.46) facilities/containers, but the transportable cases are open when operational and are not TEMPEST. We have operational systems in PACOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM, and AFRICOM AORs and none of them are TEMPEST, with the exception of a few that are in fixed locations, and have been put into TEMPEST facilities or other such containers. Does the government really have a need for operational transportable terminal racks to meet TEMPEST requirements? If so, the cost will significantly increase, delivery will likely be delayed, and the resulting weight of the racks may not meet manual lift requirements. We do not feel this is in the best interest of the government.

This requirement can be omitted.

- Our Terminal Racks are a COTS product and, as such, are provided with robust operator manuals in our format. We assume this is acceptable to the government. If not, what changes to existing documents and COTS materials as a result of section 1.1.65 will be required for this program so we may gauge the impact on cost?

It is unknown the depth of the manuals’ details. The government is requesting rights to include Technical Order numbers for these manuals to conform to its document format, with the ability to enhance the manuals for military operation. If this permission has been given in previous purchases, similar documents are requested.

- Our Terminal Racks are widely used, operational around globe, and have been procured by the US Air Force a number of times pursuant to a detailed Technical Requirements Document. Our Mobile Rack includes a Terminal locking bar and both software and hardware crypto zeroize features developed IAW this specification. While we don’t have the specific documents you reference, we firmly believe we meet the requirements of paragraph 1.1.63.

The described capabilities will comply with the requirement.

- With regard to Warranty repair timeframes, it is difficult to realistically determine our ability to meet the requirement without knowing system locations. Are we to assume all warranty repairs will be done at Hill AFB? Is an RMA to the vendor an acceptable approach with repair turnaround within 7 or 15 days from the time it reaches our facility?

These systems will be deployed in various areas and not centrally located or sent to Hill AFB for repair. An RMA for repair at the vendor’s facility with a 7-15 turnaround time is acceptable.