FA8232-16-R-3001_RFP_Q A_13_-_118_18Dec15.pdf

PDGU Questions & Answers Solicitation No. FA8232-16-R-3001

Questions 13 - 118

Question 13: Per SOO paragraph 4.4, the Contractor shall deliver "compatible TPS" such as the Versatile Depot Automatic Test Station (VDATS). Since the Government desires a test program set (TPS) compatible with their existing equipment, can the Government provide a Bill of Materials and/or drawings describing the VDATS?

Answer 13: The TPS/ITA requirement has been removed. As a result, CLIN X017 will be removed in its entirety from Section B and the TEP document and the SOO will be updated. Amendment 0002 will effect this change.

Question 14: The TEP includes all SIL and Flight Test assets priced and evaluated in period 1 (FY16) under CLINs 0011, 0012. This appears inconsistent with the Section B contract CLINs which indicate exercising the options for these units over the first three (3) periods (FY16-FY18, on CLINs X011, X012). Can the Government please clarify quantity and lead time for SIL and Flight Test assets needed by period in the TEP table.

Answer 14: The TEP matrix requires pricing for SIL and Flight Test assets in each of the first three option periods, not just in the first option period as suggested in this question.

We acknowledge that the original TEP matrix didn’t have cells I17, I18, M17, and M18 highlighted in yellow (requiring contractor fill-in). The TEP table will be corrected through amendment.

Section B of the RFP is therefore consistent with the TEP matrix, and identifies that the lead time will be defined by the offeror with its proposal, prior to contract award. For SIL/Flight Test Assets, the Government will order no more than 25/10 each total respectively. The Government could order all 25/10 in a single ordering period or split quantities up over two or three ordering periods.

Prices provided in all three option periods for SIL and Flight Test assets will factor into a firms total evaluated price. For purposes of contributing to a total evaluated price, unit prices will be extended by a “plug” quantity determined by the Government for each option period. The plug quantity will not exceed 25 each total for SIL assets and 10 each total for flight test assets over the three options periods. Offerors’ TEP will be evaluated using identical plug figures.

Question 15: The TEP only allows Contractors to input values for SIL and Flight Test assets in Period 1, cells 0011 and 0012, but the TEP lists quantities for SIL and Flight Test assets in Periods 2 and 3. Additionally, there is a requirement to upgrade the test assets over time. Will the Government allow values to be input for CLINs X011 and X012 for Periods 2 and 3? If not, can the Government explain how it wishes the Offerors to account for the cost of upgrading the assets over time?

Answer 15: As indicated in the response to question 14, the TEP table will be updated to highlight cells I17, I18, M17, and M18 in yellow. Additionally we note that the TEP matrix didn’t calculate an extended price for Option Period 2, for the Flight Test Assets CLIN 1012. The updates to the TEP table will be made on Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Under CLINs X011 and X012, the Government intends to purchase SIL and Flight Test Assets that are upgraded to the most current configuration, so price accordingly. For clarification purposes, once an asset is delivered under CLINs X011 and X012, the pre-production ICS CLIN, CLIN X013 will be used to pay for upgrades to the final configuration. This clarification will be included in CLIN X011, X012, and X013 once amendment 0002 is posted to FBO.

Question 16: Are the video outputs described in SSRD paragraph 3.1.3.4.2.2 intended to be 3 independent channels of color video plus 3 independent channels of monochrome, 3 independent channels of color video mirrored on 3 monochrome channels, or 3 independent channels (in total) that can be color or mono?

Answer 16: The requirement is for there to be three (3) NTSC RS-170A color composite outputs which mirror the following video outputs—2 of the 3 outputs are to mirror 2 of the 4 RGB RS-170 outputs (user selectable) and 1 of the 3 outputs is to mirror 1 of the 2 DVI outputs (user selectable)—and three (3) NTSC RS-170 monochrome composite video outputs.

Question 17: The CLIN X020 and CLIN X021 tabs in the TEP table have a low end quantity range of 1-50. CLINs X020 and X021 in Section B of the RFP contain language that the Government may order a minimum of 10 assets under each SLIN. Can the Government clarify this apparent inconsistency?

Answer 17: The Government setup the TEP table to allow flexibility in ordering. If an order is placed, we will order at least ten assets. The quantity ranges are very basic. We will update the TEP matrix. Specifically Cell B5 within the both CLIN X020 and X021 tabs will be updated to read “10-50” rather than “1-50.”

Question 18: The Section J Attachment, Labor Rate Matrix, requests labor rates from FY2015 through FY2024. Did the Government intend to request FY2016 through FY2025? Does the term 'fiscal year' apply strictly to the Government fiscal year (i.e. assuming an AUG 2016 award, FY2016 rates would only apply for a couple weeks), to every twelve month period based upon award (i.e. assuming an AUG 2016 award, FY2016 rates would apply for one year until AUG 2017), or can the fiscal years align to the calendar year (i.e. assuming an AUG 2016 award, FY2016 rates would apply until DEC 2016 and then FY2017 rates apply to calendar 2017)?

Answer 18: The Section J, Labor Rate Matrix, has been updated to require rates from FY16 through FY26. This change will be effected on Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Fiscal year strictly applies to the Government fiscal year, so if the contract is awarded in Aug 16, FY16 rates would only be good through 30 Sep 16, with FY17 rates becoming applicable on 1 Oct 16 lasting through 30 Sep 17… and so on through FY26

Question 19: In Exhibit A, Admin CDRLs, the Parts Management Plan appears to be duplicated as A02X and A03C. Please advise if that is simply an error or if one of these was intended to be another item.

Answer 19: CDRLs A02X and A03C are duplicates. CDRL A03C will be removed from the CDRL package

Question 20: In Exhibit A, Admin CDRLs, A03D and A03E have the same titles as A03B and A02Y, respectively; however the former CDRLs do not include references to the SOO. With identical names and missing references, please identify the SOO traceability of A03D and A03E.

Answer 20: The SOO reference for CDRLs A03D and A03E is SOO paragraph 3.2.7.2 for the SERD and 3.2.2.9.1 for Logistics Product Data. This change will be made on Amendment 0002 of the RFP. Additionally CDRLs A03B and A02Y are duplicates and will be removed with amendment 0002.

Question 21: In SOO Appendix A, the table lists an "Anti-Tamper Recommendation Report" which is not listed in the CDRLs for Exhibit A or Exhibit B. Please provide CDRL documentation for this deliverable.

Answer 21: CDRL A00B addresses the Anti-Tamper Recommendation Report. This is specified in the subtitle field (Block 3) of the CDRL.

Question 22: Can the bidder have a copy of the existing F-16 Program Protection Plan (PPP) in order to better assess the potential Critical Program Information (CPI) as part of our security analysis

Answer 22: The existing F-16 Program Protection Plan (PPP) is not releasable.

Question 23: What are the approximate cable lengths between the PDGU and

a. Each of the 4 CFMDs

b. 2 CDUs

c. Optional DVR

d. GigE network switch

Answer 23: A/C harness cables lengths will be made available after contract award and is not necessary to provide a proposal.

Question 24: Section L, Section 2.2, Table 1 calls for a “Hardware Qualification Plan” to be included in Volume II. Please confirm that this submittal encompasses the Environmental Qualification Test Plan (CDRL A02G) and the EMI Qualification Test Plan (CDRL A02F).

Answer 24: Yes - we are expecting the HQP plan submitted with the RFP to address/describe all the testing you plan to perform on the subsystem ATP, ESS, EMI, Environmental, functional performance and etc. Samples or examples of HQPs developed by your organization for other program may also be submitted as additional support documentation.

Question 25: SSRD Section 3.2.1.6: “The PDGU mass storage device shall [-3] support a NSA Type 1 or equivalent Suite B algorithm encryption/decryption capability. (Objective).” Please clarify if the NSA Type 1 capability refers to a certified solution or an algorithm.

Answer 25: Type 1 is a reference used to describe a NSA certified ECU which can execute NSA approved Suite B algorithms. Suite B is a reference to algorithms approved by the NSA for encryption and decryption of information.

Question 26: SSRD 3.3.7.3 is incomplete: “The external surfaces of the PDGU shall [-1] be finished in accordance with FPS-3001 section.” No section is specified. Please specify.

Answer 26: Thank you for catching this, the following is the revised requirement. The external surfaces of the PDGU shall [-1] be finished in accordance with FPS-3001. The exterior surfaces of the equipment shall [-2] be finished in gray, color number 36231 of FED-STD-595. The VCRM will be revised to the addition of requirement [-2].

Question 27: SSRD Table 1: PDGU Electrical Interfaces

a) Aircraft Power – Inputs:

i. 28 VDC … are the 4 signals 4 wires or 4 bundles?

ii. 115VAC, 400Hz, 3 Phase … are the 3 signals 3 wires or 3 bundles?

Legacy specification 16ZE964C suggests that there is some inconsistency in how the signals are described.

Answer 27: See the response to Question 37.

Question 28: SSRD Figure 1: PDGU System Interfaces references RS-170A RGB SSRD Section 3.1.3.4.2.2 references RS-170A composite video SSRD Table 1: PDGU Electrical Interfaces

a. Video Interfaces – Inputs: RS-170A (color)…for both Threshold (1) and Objective (6), is the color RGB or composite

b. Video Interfaces – Outputs: NTSC RS-170A (color)…is the color RGB or composite

Answer 28a: Section 3.1.3.4.2.1 the threshold requirement should be for (1) RS-170 RGB color input. We will revise Figure 1, Table 1 and the text of section 3.3.4.2.1 to reflect this clarification.

Answer 28b: See the response for question 16 above

Question 29: Will the PDGU at any time during its service life contain classified data either in transit through the PDGU volatile memory or at rest in the PDGU mass storage?

Answer 29: This could occur at some point in the unit’s service life.

Question 30: The Security Requirements Traceability Matrix (SRTM) allocated SC-13 and MP- 5(4) as requirements however these are only necessary for High Confidentiality and High Integrity systems. SSRD Section 3.2.1.6 indicates Moderate Integrity and Moderate Confidentiality are all that is required. Is the SRTM correct or SSRD?

Answer 30: The SRTM contains the USG’s attempt to tailor which security requirements are applicable to the PDGU program. Each supplier is to review the SRTM and modify and/or tailor the security requirements to their specific technical solution.

Question 31: Section L identifies a “CSOW” in multiple places. It is not clear from the context whether the CSOW is the same as the SOO or is a different document. Where is the CSOW to be incorporated? Is there a desired format? Does the CSOW count against the allotted 200 pages or incorporated into a separate attachment (with 30 pages allotment)?

Answer 31: Section L, Table 1 under Paragraph 2.2, was updated on Amendment 0001 of the RFP to clarify this. The CSOW is to be incorporated in Volume II and has no page limit. Please see questions 3, 6, & 7 posted to FBO on 3 Dec 15 for additional information regarding the CSOW.

Question 32: For Plans that are to be delivered with the proposal, are the terms “draft” and “initial” synonymous? If not, please clarify.

Answer 32: Yes, the term “draft” and “initial are essentially synonymous.

Question 33: Inconsistency between SOO CDRLs and Section L Table 1 on attachments due with proposal. Please clarify what attachments are due with proposal.

Examples:

Deliverable Section L Instruction (Table 1)

SOO CDRL Instruction

SEMP With Proposal At Contract award

SDP With Proposal Draft 30 days prior to

SRR

Manufacturing Plan With Proposal 30 days prior to PDR

Anti-Tamper Plan Concept with Proposal At SRR

Answer 33: The documents due with the RFP response are draft versions of the documents we expect to receive as CDRLs. They should contain sufficient content to make them worthwhile. The Anti-Tamper Plan will be added to the Appendix A of the SOO along with the specific delivery dates.

Question 34: In drawing 16VE964003, connectors J4, J7, and J8 are not defined. What are their system function(s)? Are they required for the PDGU (i.e., can they be ignored)?

Answer 34: These connectors are currently required and cannot be ignored. Systems function(s) will be provide through the ICD after contract award.

Question 35: Please provide access to documents referenced in the SSRD:

16PP2569 - ICD for Multifunction Display Set

16PP378 - Identified in SSRD Section 3.2.1.2.2 with no definition.

Answer 35: Due to existing legal agreements these documents cannot be released until after contract award.

Question 36: Reference Past Performance, Attachment L-Two - Past Performance Information, “PPI Tool”. Per Attachment L-2, the PPI Tool can be downloaded from the FBO site and should be found at the solicitation posting under the “All Files” column on the “Notice Details” tab. It’s not there, please provide.

Answer 36: The “PPI Tool” file was added to the FBO website on 4 Dec 15.

Question 37: Reference SSRD 3.1.3.1 Electrical, Table 1. Do the numbers for Aircraft Power Inputs and Outputs represent the number of physical contacts or logical groups?

Answer 37: Table 1in Section 3.1.3.1 outlines the quantity of each specific type of power (input/output) required. It does not identify the number or quantity of physical contacts at the connector.

Question 38: Reference SSRD 3.1.3.1.1.2 Output, “The PDGU shall [-4] provide the capability to supply the voltages and power levels identified in Table 2 below to each Block 30 CMFD (Objective).” How is the BLOCK30 pinout different from BLOCK 40?

Answer 38: We will provide the Block 30 ICD after contract award. In general for the Block 40/50 the PDG does not provide 115 VAC to the display heaters, it supplies +28 VDC (display heaters) and +30 VDC (displays).

Question 39: Section L, 2.0, page 1 references a Systems Specification. Is this the same as the SSRD? Also, reference is made to an SRD. Also in SOO, Section 1.3, reference is made to both a SRD and a SSRD. Are these three documents the same or different? If different, please provide the identified documents.

Answer 39: System Specification is the SSRD. In SOO 1.3 SRD should not be included, will be corrected to SSRD. Essentially, yes they are all the same document.

Question 40: Reference SSRD 3.1.3.4.2.2 NTSC RS-170/170A, para 2 – “Each of the NTSC RS-170A composite video channels shall [ ] provide the capability to independently mirror two

(2) of the four (4) RS-170 RGB outputs and one (1) of the two (2) DVI video outputs.” Please clarify the meaning of “mirror two” in greater technical detail.

Answer 40: Think of mirroring as a video repeater with no loss of video quality.

Question 41: Reference SSRD 3.1.3.4.2.2 NTSC RS-170/170A, para 4 – “The PDGU shall [-2] provide three (3) monochrome NTSC RS-170 composite video outputs as modified by 16PP2569 and 16PP967.” Are these three additional to the 3 RS-170A? If so, what is the video source for these three?

Answer 41: See the response to Question 16.

Question 42: Reference SSRD 3.1.3.4.2.3 DVI, para 2 – “The PDGU shall [-2] provide 6 DVI outputs compliant to DVI-D standard. (Objective).” Do 4 of these 6 replace the RS170RGB outputs as defined in the threshold requirement? If no, do they share the same video sources as the threshold requirement outputs?

Answer 42:

1) The baseline (Threshold) requirement is for 2 DVI outputs. One of these DVI outputs is currently planned be used to mirror one channel of the RS-170A color composite video output the remaining DVI output will be for another avionics applications.

2) The Objective requirement does not replace the RS-170 RGB outputs, the additional DVI outputs would be in addition to them.

3) Currently we do not envision the Objective DVI outputs to share the same video sources as the RS-170 RGB outputs, but that does not rule out the possibility that they may at some point in the future.

Question 43: Reference SSRD 3.1.5.1.1 Internal Power Supply, para 1 – “The PDGU internal power supply shall -1 provide all the required voltages necessary to operate the PDGU and up to 4 CMFDs (Block 40/50 (Threshold) and Block 30 (Objective)) as defined herein and in 16ZE123C and 16ZE962.” What is the connector interface diagram for Block 30?

Answer 43: The Block 30 interface diagram will be provided after contract award.

Question 44: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.1 System Video Latency, para 4 – “Digital video latency (non-interlaced 768 x 768 image at a frame rate of 30 Hz).” For the H.264 High Profile Level

4.1 standard (reference SSRD 3.2.1.5.3), there is HD 30Hz Interlaced and HD 60Hz Progressive, but there is not a 30Hz Progressive (non-interlaced). Please confirm the requirement.

Answer 44: It is our understanding the H.264 High Profile Level 4.1 is backward compatible with the lower level video formats and compression schemes.

Question 45: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.4.4.4 Dynamic Link, para 3 – “Upon successful completion of the dynamic link process the PDGU shall [-3] assert a buyer defined flag to notify readiness to receive any Buyer developed applications.” Please provide greater detail where the flag is located and how the buyer accesses it.

Answer 45: Our Architecture team is evaluating if this will be a discrete or software message.

Question 46: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.5.2 Video Switching, para 1 – “The PDGU shall [-1] provide a video switching capability, capable of routing a minimum of 7 independent video inputs (internally or externally generated) to a minimum of 6 independent video outputs simultaneously.”

For the threshold, there are:

5x RS-170A mono 1x RS-170A color 1x MPEG2 1x MPEG4/H.264 (HP4.1)/AVC Total threshold input is 8 4x RS170RGB 3x RS170A color 3x RS170A mono 2x DVI Total threshold output is 12 For the objective, there are:

5x RS-170A mono 6x RS-170A color 2x MPEG4/H.264 (HP4.1)/AVC Total objective input is 13 4x RS170RGB 3x RS170A color 3x RS170A mono 6x DVI Total objective output is 16

Is the minimum of 7 inputs and 6 outputs of the video switch correct as the threshold requirement? If so, which of the aforementioned channels are mapped to 7 inputs and which are mapped to 6 outputs?

Answer 46: Yes 7 inputs and 6 outputs. We desire the ability to control which video switch via software control. For example in one scenario we may want a one (1) to one

(1) mapping of 6 video inputs to 6 video outputs with one spare input channel. In an alternate scenario we might map one (1) video input to two (2) video outputs, or switch between two (2) video inputs to one (1) video output, or any combination of inputs to outputs, etc.

Question 47: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.5.3 Video Decompression, para 3 – “The MPEG- 4/H.264/AVC decoder/algorithm shall [-3 ] support decoding tools conforming to the H.264 standard High Profile and Level 4.1 video streams.” Does this conflict with latency requirements of 75ms (T), 50ms (O), since Level 4.1 may exceed these requirements?

Answer 47: Please provide additional technical clarification for your question.

Question 48: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.5.6 Moving Map, para 6, list (f) – “GeoChips.” Please provide a reference for “GeoChips”.

Answer 48: Per our current understanding Geochips are related to moving maps and are run-time commanded geo-reference image overlays.

Question 49: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.7.1 Throughput, para 1 – “The PDGU aggregate processing throughput shall [-1] be a minimum of 35,000 Million Instructions Per Second (MIPS) (Threshold).” Advanced processor architectures use Dhrystone MIPS and/or Whetstone MIPS benchmarks as opposed to MIPS benchmarks. Is either of these benchmark metrics acceptable equivalents of MIPS?

Answer 49: The PDGU primary task is graphics processing so we tend to lean towards a floating point based benchmark. From our understanding there are a myriad of benchmarks on the market today for single and multi-core processors. You can discuss the merits of the benchmark you desire just provide the rational and justification for your selection and how it relates to our requirement in your proposal and we will evaluate it.

Question 50: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.8.3 Memory Size and Type, para 2 – “Both SDRAM and EEPROM/Flash memory shall [-2] support and perform wear leveling.” Could customer confirm they want wear leveling for SDRAM since wear leveling is usually only associated with EEPROM/Flash memory?

Answer 50: Yes, we want wear leveling for SDRAM.

Question 51: Reference SSRD 3.2.1.8.4 Mass Storage, para 1 – “The mass storage device requirements identified within this section shall [-1] be incorporated in conjunction with the requirements identified in sections Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.. (Objective).” Section 0? Is this a typo?

Answer 51: This should read section 3.1.4.3 and 3.2.1.4.6 and will be corrected in Amendment 0002.

Question 52: CDRL A00B is missing from Exhibit A. The answer affects adequate pricing.

Please provide.

Answer 52: CDRL A00B will be included in the updated Exhibit A posted with Amendment 0002.

Question 53: Missing CDRL for Test Failure Report. The answer affects adequate pricing.

Answer 53: This CDRL is already included in exhibit A as CDRL A01D

Question 54: Missing CDRL for Anti-Tamper Recommendation Report. The answer affects adequate pricing. Please provide.

Answer 54: CDRL A00B is for the Anti-Tamper Recommendation Report, and will be included in Exhibit A with Amendment 0002.

Question 55: The following CDRLs in Exhibit A are duplicate. Which ones should bidders use?

A03C duplicate to A02X Answer 55(a): Use A02X and delete A03C

A03D duplicate to A03B Answer 55(b): Use A03D

A03E duplicate to A02Y Answer 55(c): Use A03E

Question 56: DID DI-MISC-80508B for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) is called out in SOO Section 3.2.2.6 but there isn’t a CDRL in Exhibit A for this item. Please correct.

Answer 56: There will no longer be an associated DID with DMS, the SOO will be updated in amendment 0002 to make this change.

Question 57: A034, Technical Manual Contract Requirements is not in SOO Appendix A table.

Answer 57: It is the Technical Data Package, Tech Order Source Data DI-SESS-80776A.

Question 58: Missing SOO Appendix B, Data Accession List is missing. Please provide.

Answer 58: References to SOO Appendix B serve as a placeholder for the Data Accession list that the Offeror is to provide as part of its CSOW.

Question 59: Missing SOO Appendix C. The SRTM imbedded in the SOO cannot be opened.

Answer 59: The SRTM file was provided as an attachment on Amendment 0001 of the RFP. The amendment was posted to FBO on 3 December 2015.

Question 60: Are Major Reviews at the bidder’s location unless specifically stated otherwise in the SOO?

Answer 60: Yes, all major reviews are anticipated to take place at the Supplier’s facility unless specifically stated otherwise in the SOO.

Question 61: SOO paragraph 3.2.2.9.1 Provisioning, references the “Initial Provisioning Performance Specification” that is provided with the contract. Please provide.

Answer 61: Provided with Contract, not RFP.

Question 62: SOO paragraph 3.2.6.1 Engineering Data, references DI-SESS-81903, “As Built Configuration Data”. There is no related CDRL in SOO Exhibit A. However this is the DID for the As Built Configuration Data, BOM which should be the DID for CDRL A030. Currently the DID for A030 is DI-CMAN-8156 which is the DID for As Built Configuration List. Please clarify and provide the necessary updates.

Answer 62: DI-CMAN-81516 and DI-SESS- 81903 are essentially the same DID. We will revise the Appendix A of the SOO. The CDRL will be revised at contract award to reflect the SOO DID reference.

Question 63: SOO Paragraph 4.5 references DID DI-ILSS-80620 but there is no related CDRL in SOO Exhibit A. Please clarify.

Answer 63: reference deleted

Question 64: SOO Paragraph 4.1 indicates the following paragraphs from section 3 are to be included in WBS 2.1

3.2.1 (does this include 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.5 also?)

3.2.1.6 (does this include 3.2.1.6.1, 3.2.1.6.1.2, 3.2.1.6.1.3, 3.2.1.6.1.4, 3.2.1.6.1.5 also?)

3.2.1.8: please be specific which meetings the AF considers to be required in

WBS 2.1.

3.2.2.8 (does this include 3.2.2.8.1 also?)

3.2.2.9 (does this include 3.2.2.9.1 also?)

3.2.2.11 (does this include 3.2.2.11.1 and 3.2.11.2 also?)

3.2.5 (does this include 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.5.4, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.5.7 also?)

Answer 64: Yes all subparagraphs are included. Detail in your RFP response the meetings you feel are applicable or required to support your production efforts.

Question 65: For CLIN 1015, will the travel cost be covered under CLIN 0001?

Answer 65: Travel for any requirements or meetings listed in the SOO are associated with the event/product. CLIN 0001 is for unforeseen Government directed travel.

Question 66: CLIN 1016; How is this CLIN different than CLIN 0003 which is not separately priced, since CLIN 1016 also references SOO Appendix A?

Answer 66: CLIN 1016 is Exhibit B because it’s separately priced even though it’s listed in Appendix A with all other CDRLs. Appendix A lists all CDRLs no matter the Exhibit or

CLIN.

Question 67: The model contract indicates that CLIN 0004 is an option but the TEP says that CLIN 0004 Milestone 1 is not an option. The assumption is that CLIN 0004 is not an option similar to CLIN 0007. Is this correct?

Answer 67: CLIN 0004 is not an option, and will be awarded when the contract is awarded. The model contract will be corrected in amendment 0002.

Question 68: The NRE WBS structure defined in the SOO does not account for Hardware development. Please define what WBS should be used?

Answer 68: Section 3.2. WBS 1.0 and the associated subsections define the non-recurring engineering (NRE) activities required to design, develop, integrate and qualify the hardware.

Question 69: Since there are 84 CLINs, we plan to append the CLIN number at the beginning of the WBS number, for example 0004.1.2. This will maintain clear organization and isolation of cost between CLINs. Is this an acceptable approach?

Answer 69: Organization of the WBS is at the discretion of the Offeror, with the WBS being evaluated in accordance with the RFP Evaluation criteria.

Question 70: An Anti-Tamper Concept Plan (ref: Table 1 of Section L) is required with the proposal response. In the SOO, Section 3.2.5.3 it states “Note: The Anti-Tamper Plan is an

Annex to the Program Protection Plan (PPP) and shall be classified SECRET as soon as plan development begins.” Is the Concept considered different than the plan and intended to be unclassified?

Answer 70: Think of the AT Concept plan as a draft version of the AT Plan. The classifications of these plans are dependent upon the USG information/technology you are protecting in addition to your own proprietary data. Include a discussion in the plans addressing how you protect any proprietary hardware, software or firmware.

Question 71: Reference SSRD 4.5.1.4 LRU Environmental Tests, para 2 – “All equipment will meet specified performance when subjected to any applicable combinations of.” This sentence is incomplete. Please provide.

Answer 71: Thank you for pointing this out. We will revise section 4.5.1.4 to state the following:

“All equipment will meet specified performance when subjected to any applicable combinations of environmental conditions and test methods defined herein.”

Question 72: In the file titled “FOUO_PDGU_TEP_Table_20Nov15”, Row 17 (SIL Test Assets (Production Representative) of the worksheet titled TEP Table indicates that 25 SIL Test Assets are to be delivered in Period 1, 25 SIL Test Assets delivered in Option Period 2, and 25 SIL Test Assets delivered in Option Period 3.

Please confirm that the number of units to be delivered for Option Period 2 and Option Period 3 are correct.

Answer 72: See response to Question 14.

Question 73: Section L, 1.0 Program Structure and Objectives “In Accordance With (IAW) the detailed proposal preparation instructions found in this solicitation, the Offeror shall submit a proposal containing: a completed Model Contract, Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), Contract Statement of Work (CSOW), Integrated Master Plan (IMP), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), Small Business Participation Plan, draft Software Development Plan (SDP), Anti-Tamper Concept Plan (ATP), draft Program Management Plan (PMP) and draft Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP).”?

a) Is the CWBS a separate annex, subject to the 30-page limit?

b) Is the CSOW a separate annex, subject to the 30-page limit?

c) Where does the CSOW get included in the proposal?

d) Is the SRTM a separate annex, subject to the 30-page limit?

Answer 73: CWBS and CSOW are separate annexes with no page limit. CSOW will be included in Volume II. The SRTM is a spreadsheet to be filled out as currently formatted without a page limit.

Question 74: Section L, 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

“The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.”

a) Table 1 doesn’t specify a CSOW. Please clarify.

b) Table 1 doesn’t specify a Small Business Participation Plan. Please clarify.

Answer 74: The updated version of Section L, Posted with amendment 1 on 3 Dec answers your questions.

Question 75: 2.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

(b) …Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. …

a) When a table, chart, graph, etc. clearly doesn’t fit on an 8.5 by 11 page and must be placed on an 11 by 17 foldout page, is it permissible to wrap associated narrative text around the table if there is sufficient white space on the foldout page?

Answer 75: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question 76: Section L, 2.3 Electronic Offers “The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit using a recordable CD. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD, except volume III. Volume III, Past Performance, will be on a separate CD for early delivery.”

a) Please confirm if the entire past performance volume (in hard copy and soft copy) gets submitted for early delivery?

Answer 76: Our preference is to receive both the hard copy and CD early

Question 77: Section L, 3.3 Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) “The offeror shall fill out the CRM that assures all requirements are addressed and easily accessible to the evaluators. All references to a requirement shall be accounted for in the matrix.

The CRM must provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal. The Government has provided a preliminary CRM (ATTACHMENT L-ONE, Sample Cross Reference Matrix) to assist the offeror in correlating Section L instructions with Section M evaluation factors. The CRM shall reference the Proposal Reference, Section L, Section M, SOO, SSRD, Data Item Description (DID), and Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).”

a) Is the offeror allowed to use contractor format for the CRM, so long as the CRM maps all requirements to Proposal Reference, Section L, Section M, SOO, SSRD, Data Item Description (DID), and Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)?

Answer 77: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question 78: Section L, 4.2.2.1 Technical Risk “Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed CSOW you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating (link provided at end of document). Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOO or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose realistic risk mitigation for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level.

Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.”

a) Should this information be addressed under the offeror’s response to Subfactor 1, item l: “Specify program risk anticipated in supporting the PDGU program and provide an anticipated mitigation for each identified risk?”

Answer 78: Yes, this is correct.

Question 79: Section L, 4.2.3 Subfactor One – Technical Requirements through 4.2.5 Subfactor Three – Organic Software Development Support

a) Does the Government prefer to see a technical response with a one-for-one correlation to the lettered paragraphs within Section L headings 4.2.3 through 4.2.5?

Answer 79: Yes, it would be helpful if the proposal identified which letter was being addressed. They don’t need to stay in alphabetical order if it makes more sense to rearrange them. But it would be helpful for the vendor to identify which subfactor and letter they’re addressing.

Question 80: Section L, 5.3.1 Specific Content “Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.”

a) Should this specific content all reside in the Past Performance Information (PPI) response, such that there is no narrative discussion of relevance outside of the PPI response?

b) Is the following the expected structure of the hard copy of the past performance volume?

1st tab: PPI Printout (ATTACHMENT L-TWO)

2nd tab: Consent Letter (ATTACHMENT L-FIVE)

3rd tab: Client Authorization Letter (ATTACHMENT L-SIX)

4th tab: Organizational Change History

Answer 80: Yes to both

Question 81: SSRD 3.1.3.1.1.1 (Electrical Power Interfaces) Input

a) What is the purpose and function of the secondary, 28 VDC, power input?

Answer 81: The +28VDC input is a pass through to power the heaters for each of the 4 CMFDs see section 3.1.3.1.1.2 Output shall [-1].

Question 82: SSRD 3.1.3.1.1.2 (Electrical Power Interfaces) Output

a) When operating from 28 VDC, must the PDGU generate 115 VAC for the displays?

Answer 82: See the response to question 81 above. The PDGU provides +30 VDC to power the 4 CMFDs see 3.1.3.1.1.21 Output shall [-2].

Question 83: SSRD 3.2.1.8.2 Memory Zeroize

a) NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1 defines the following three techniques (Clear, Purge and

Destroy) to eliminate data but Zeroize is not addressed. In the SSRD paragraph

3.2.1.8.2 use of the word Zeroize is used throughout the requirements. According to CNSS Instruction 4009, Zeroize is defined as, “To remove or eliminate the key from cryptographic equipment or fill device.” Please provide clarification for application of correct technique?

Answer 83: Although you are correct regarding the classic definitions for these operations. In SRD section 3.2.8.2 shall [-1] states: “The PDGU shall [-1] implement a hardware zeroize capability intended to purge and/or sanitize all memory and mass storage devices.”

Question 84: SSRD 3.3.13.1 Real Time Operating System

a) What does the word “secure” mean in the context of the requirement for “secure time and space resource partitioned environment”?

Answer 84: In general the RTOS to provide a “secure time and space environment” our expectation is that the RTOS will allow multiple applications to execute simultaneously, to be activated and deactivated, and provide protected from a fault or failure of an application without corrupting other executing applications all executing within the LRUs time and space allocation.

Question 85: SOO, Appendix C

a) In Appendix C of the SOO, mention is made of Security Requirements Traceability Matrix (SRTM) security controls deemed applicable to the PDGU. In the note we are asked to review the appendix and provide our concurrence, justification as to the non-applicability to the indicated Cyber Security Controls. The Icon for the file is not accessible, and we cannot open the file.

Please provide access.

Answer 85: See the response to Question 59.

Question 86: Request for Proposal FA8232-16-R-3001 main solicitation file

a) On page 120 of the solicitation, the government references DFARS 252.215.7009

Proposal Adequacy Checklist, which per DFARS 215.408 (5) is only required when Certified Cost or Pricing data are required to be submitted. Section L, Part

6.1.4 (page 13), clearly refers to “Other Than Cost and Pricing” data being the main source of establishing price reasonableness and cost realism. These two things are in conflict, and it is our belief that the reference to DFARS

252.215.7009 and related DFARS 215.408 should be removed from the solicitation. Please advise.

Answer 86: Amendment 0001 of the RFP deleted DFARS provision 252.215-7009. The amendment was posted on 3 December 2015.

Question 87: A02T, System Safety Program Plan, DI-SAFT-81626/T, SOO 3.2.2.11

a) Use MIL-STD-882E Task 301 as a guide

(should refer instead to Task 102, not Task 301) First submittal NLT 30 days prior to SRR. Updates as required.

We believe Task 301 is an error, as indicated in parenthesis.

Answer 87: CDRL A02T Block 16 Item1 will be corrected to state the System Safety Program Plan is to be developed using MIL-STD-882E Task 102.

Question 88: A02U, System/Subsystem Hazard Analysis (SSHA), DI-SAFT-80101C/T, SOO 3.2.2.8

a) Use MIL-STD-217F and TM 5-698-4 as guides (should refer instead to MIL- STD-882E Task 204 and Task 205)

Submit Initial NLT 30 days prior to PDR. Update NLT 30 days prior to CDR. Final NLT 45 days prior to first delivery. We believe this is an error, as indicated in parenthesis.

Answer 88: The MIL-STD-217F reference should be MIL-HDBK-217F in Appendix A of the SOO for the Failure Modes, Effect and Critically Analysis document.

System/Subsystem Hazard Analysis (SSHA) the CDRL and Appendix A of the SOO will be revised to reference MIL-STD-882RE Task 2014 and Task 205.

Question 89: RFP, Section I, DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. Per Memo dated October 8, 2015 from Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, (DEVIATION 2016-O00001)(OCT 2015) is to be used in lieu of this version. As the RFP does include the DEVIATION, recommend deletion of (SEPT 2015) version of clause.

Answer 89: DFARs clause 252.204-7012 has been deleted since 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DEVIATION 2016-O0001) (OCT 2015) is required in lieu of 252.204-7012 and the deviation is already included in the solicitation. Amendment 0002 will effect this change.

Question 90: RFP, Section K, Use of Non-Government Advisors. As the referenced non-government advisor support companies will have access to technical and cost/price data submitted to government, will the Government provide the Point(s) of Contact from each support company so Non-Disclosure Agreements can be put into place?

Answer 90: If requested, the Points of Contact for each support company can be provided. Non-government advisors will not see the cost-price data submitted to the Government.

Question 91: Section L in RFP, Part IV Representations and Instructions, Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. As there is a separate Section L document relating to this requirement, clarification is requested on the labeling/location of this section.

Answer 91: Section L is on pages 125-127 of the RFP initially posted. Contract writing system limitations require us to include Section L Attachments in Section J of the RFP.

These attachments are listed on pages 114 – 115 of the RFP initially posted. The actual attachments are posted to FBO and labeled as Section L attachments.

If this explanation doesn’t answer your question, please resubmit.

Question 92: SOO Section 3.2.1.9.1; RFP, Section M 2.2.3(n). Small Business Participation Plan. Clarification is requested pertaining to the Small Business Participation Plan goals. Small Business Participation Plans are to be based upon a percentage of the total contract value.

Section 3.2.1.9.1 in the SOO indicates that the small business subcontracting goal is 10% of the total subcontracted amount, which we interpret as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan goal assignment practice. Based upon the percentages provided under subparagraph a) of this section, should this percentage actually be a total of 10% and the breakdown addressed in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? If not, can the government provide the required percentages for the Small Business Participation goal? Section 2.2.3(n) in Section M, makes reference to a "Service Summary Matrix Clause, Small Business Subcontracting Clause." Does this reference pertain to the percentages provided under SOO, Section 3.2.1.9.1 (a)? If not, can the government provide the explicit location of these clauses?

Answer 92: The percentages don’t need to add up to 10%. The lower percentages are applied to the 10% contract value not the entire contract value. For example, if the contract is $100,000 then $10,000 would meet the 10% Small Business Subcontracting Plan goal. Then 5% of the $10,000 would be Small Disadvantaged Business, which is $500. Also, one company can fit the criteria for more than one subcontractor, such as a Small Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Business.

Question 93: RFP, Section I. Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts) 252.219-7003 (Deviation 2013-O0014) (AUG 2013) is cited in the list of Clauses Incorporated by Reference. IAW DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(B), we request that 252.219-7004 [Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program)] be added as well, to enable contractors to use their comprehensive subcontracting plans.

Answer 93: Clause 252.219-7004 will be included in the RFP through amendment 0002.

Question 94: TEP Table. It appears that some of the equations in the TEP are incomplete. The TEP equations appear to have some inconsistencies with some of the filled in blanks to be added up not showing in the equation. Recommend that the TEP is reviewed and reverified.

Answer 94: The TEP table has been updated. Amendment 0002 of the RFP will have this update.

Question 95: In the appendix A, both an Anti-Tamper (AT) Recommendation Report and an AT Plan are listed. However in paragraph 3.2.5.3, only the AT plan is listed. We find no additional mention of a AT Recommendation Report anywhere in the proposal tech volume. Wording in

3.2.5.3 was modified with the final SOO and it was removed. Additionally in Section L an Anti- Tamper Concept Plan is listed as required to be submitted with the proposal but it is not listed in Appendix A of the SOO. Please clarify.

Answer 95: The AT Plan currently referenced is identical to the AT Recommendation Report. We will revise Appendix A of the SOO to eliminate address this deficiency.

We will revise Appendix A of the SOO to incorporate the Anti-Tamper Concept Plan.

Question 96: We were able to gain access to the SSRD and the ZIP folder. However, the C4 or the RST file format in the ZIP folder could not be opened. Please convert those to PDF or word so that we can view those files as well.

Answer 96: There are numerous systems that can be used to open C4 files, to include Lucent Viewer. For more information regarding opening Jedmics drawing format/file types, please reference https://www.jedmics.net/index.jsp. The RST files are only 1KB in size and do not contain additional information.

Question 97: SSRD Section 3.3.1.1.2. Request the following documents that are referenced in Section 3.3.1.1.2: 16ZE964, 16ZE962, 16ZE534.

Answer 97: These will be provided after contract award

Question 98: SSRD Section 3.2.1.8.4, Paragraph 24. The mass storage device requirements identified within this section shall [-1] be incorporated in conjunction with the requirements identified in sections 3.1.4.3 and 0. (Objective) What is paragraph 0? The link goes nowhere with respect to the requirement. Please clarify.

Answer 98: See the response to Question 51.

Question 99: SSRD Section 3.2.2.1, Paragraph 15. In section 3.2.2.1, paragraph 3 of the SOO, is the intent to require delivery of developmental artifacts (for example the SRS) for non-developmental software components like an RTOS, even where the RTOS has an established track record of DO-178 certification? Recommend that for established RTOS this is an unnecessary cost, and recommend a clarification.

Answer 99a: The SSRD reference is incorrect therefore we are unable to respond to this portion of the question. Please correct the reference and resubmit this portion of the question.

Answer 99b: At this time, we do not anticipate needing any RTOS certification artifacts.

Question 100: Exhibit A, CDRLS. Data Items A02X and A03C are titled Parts Management Plan. Was this a mistake or are they different documents?

Answer 100: They are a duplicate, delete A03C. This will be corrected in amendment 0001.

Question 101: Exhibit A, CDRLS. A02Y and A03E are titled Logistics Product Data. Was this a mistake or are they different documents?

Answer 101: See the response to Question 55.

Question 102: Exhibit A, CDRLS. A03B and A03D are titled Logistics Product Data Summaries. Was this a mistake or are they different documents?

Answer 102: See the response to Question 55.

Question 103: SOO, Appendix A. The SOO Appendix A calls out a Subsystem Design Analysis Report (R&MP). This is not found in the Exhibit A document. Please provide clarification.

Answer 103: See CDRL A01G

Question 104: Are all travel cost covered under CLIN 0001? For example, if a bidder needs to travel to a subcontractor or vendor is this covered under CLIN 0001?

Answer 104: See the response to Question 65.

Question 105: CLIN 0003 is not separately priced. How is CLIN 1016 different since it also references SOO Appendix A and B.

Answer 105: See the response to Question 66.

Question 106: There is no CDRL reference for CLIN X005 in Section L Cross Reference Matrix. Similar to CLIN X004, it is an NRE CLIN and some of the CDRLs would apply. Please clarify.

Answer 106: We are not breaking the CDRL’s out into different CLINs because they will be delivered at different times or multiple times in the contract.

Question 107: There is no CDRL reference for CLIN X021 in Section L Cross Reference Matrix. Similar to CLIN X020, it is a production CLIN and some of the CDRLs would apply.

Please clarify.

Answer 107: We are not breaking the CDRL’s out into different CLINs because they will be delivered at different times or multiple times in the contract.

Question 108: Section M, 2.5 describes FY16 and FY17 funding caps. Is the timing of the funding equivalent to months 1-12 and 13-24 after award of contract?

Answer 108: The affordability statement states the calendar months and year for each fiscal year. FY16 is 1 Oct 2015 to 30 Sep 2015. FY17 is 1 Oct 2016 to 30 Sep 2017.

Question 109: The pricing tables for CLINs X020 and X021 for each Option Period show range pricing for qty 1-50, 51-100, etc. Should bidders provide unit prices or total prices for the max quantity for each period? For example, should we provide unit prices for qty 1-50, or a total price for the purchase of all 50 units?

Answer 109: Unit prices should be provided.

Question 110: Instruction #2 on the CLIN X020 and X021 tabs state, “If a production asset option is exercised, the minimum number of assets that will be ordered at one time is:

10”. Assuming the first range of qty 1-50, if the Government orders a minimum of 10, it will be at a higher unit price than if the Government orders 50, due to economies of scale. There are potential price changes/breaks below qty 50 at ranges 10, 11-24, 25-50, etc. Does the Government wish to see these price breaks in the proposal?

Answer 110: No. Stick to the price breaks identified in the price matrix.

Question 111: Within the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool, Program Details, it does not allow you to provide any type of formatted text including tables or figures. The inability to show past performance experience through pictures or comparison of relevancy using a table will be challenging. Will the requester consider revising the tool to allow such formatting?

Answer 111: The tool cannot be revised to allow such formatting. Offerors must work around the tool’s constraints.

Question 112: When there is inconsistency between Exhibit A (CDRLs) and SOO Appendix A regarding submittal frequency and disposition, which one has the priority? For example, CDRL A00R instructs the bidder to submit Preliminary 60 days after contract award, Updates as required, Final submittal 90 days after government comments, and Approval required. The SOO Appendix A indicates Draft – at SRR, Initial – 30 days after contract award, Updates as required, and Informational. Please clarify.

Answer 112: For CDRL A00R please follow the instructions as defined in the SOO. The CDRL Document will be updated in amendment 0002.

Question 113: Exhibit A00J System Security Risk Assessment Management Plan indicates the “Second updated submittal shall be submitted not later than 90 calendar days prior to start of “. Please clarify what event.

Answer 113: Thank you for catching this –Exhibit A00J and Appendix A of the SOO will be revised to state the following: “Update – 90 days prior to the start…