FIA2T_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_20160127.docx

FIA2T RFP FA830716R0049 - Questions and Answers 29 January 2016

Section 1.4.1.5, 3.1.1.2.3 The ST1 SRD Sections 1.4.1.5 and 3.1.1.2.3 state that:

1. The UCM unwraps the black Over-The-Air Rekey (OTAR) key using the operational algorithm.

1. The UCM Cryptographic Key Material Input shall provide the signals needed to load a single cryptographically protected key from authorized external source.

1. The UCM only contains the current key it is using to process data.

Will the key encryption key (KEK) be provided through the Cryptographic Key Material Input as part of the keying/rekeying process from the higher assembly?

Sample Task 1 UCM S/SRD provides sufficient description of keying behavior. Implementation specifics are part of potential Offeror's design approach, based on trade-offs in approaches to meet all requirements specified. Descriptive rationale for trade-offs (required in Section L of the RFP) should include rationale behind trade-offs in cryptographic key material input based on other design parameters in the design approach.

Section 3.1.2.2 The ST1 SRD Section 3.1.2.2 states:

· The UCM package size shall not exceed 40 x 40 mm

We are assuming this is the measurement for the ceramic package or perhaps the pin layout dimensions and not the final package footprint size on a circuit card. Is this assumption correct?

Offeror must interpret the requirements of the RFP using his best judgment and knowledge of relevant industry terms and methods.

Section 1.4.1.5 The ST1 SRD Sections 1.4.1.5 state:

1) The UCM unwraps the black Over-The-Air Rekey (OTAR) key using the operational algorithm.

May we assume the operational algorithm refers to the AES algorithm and contains the information and ability to decrypt and extract the encryption key?

The operational algorithm refers to the AES algorithm. However, any assumptions about the specific functions of the algorithm are part of potential Offeror's design approach, based on trade-offs in approaches to meet all requirements specified. Descriptive rationale for trade-offs (required in Section L of the RFP) should include rationale behind trade-offs in operational aspects based on other design parameters in the design approach.

Para (5) states:

The proposal shall provide cross-referencing between volumes.

Para (6) states Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal.

Para (7) states Each response to each subfactor shall be self-contained. No cross-referencing between subfactor responses is allowed.

Para (5) and (6) are contradictory while Para (7) is in agreement with Para (6).

Question:Please clarify if cross referencing is requested or disallowed.

Each volume and each response to subfactors shall be self-contained, without requiring the reader to actually go to a different volume/subfactor. However, cross-referencing is requested to indicate content that are duplicated for these self-containment purposes, with their locations.

Offeror shall plan final delivery of ECCCA quantity specified in (1) nine (9) months from the planning start date indicated in Section L.3.1.3. Assume receipt of all parts prior to planning start date. An alternative final delivery schedule may be proposed if sound rationale for the delivery schedule is provided by Offeror.

While in L 3.3.3

(2) Provide a delivery schedule associated with each part in the Bill of Materials (BOM), along with the open source confirmation of availability of said part. Identify the ten (10) items with the longest lead times. Schedule shall state the total time from part order to part delivery from supplier. All parts shall be considered as not on hand by the Offeror. The Offeror shall fill in the template provided in (2)

Question:

L.3.3.2 requires that all parts are on hand prior to 1 January 2017 the assumed start date of Sample Task 2. while L.3.3.3 specifies providing a delivery schedule for the parts on the BOM. Is the assumption that providing an alternative delivery schedule (L.3.3.2) with appropriate rationale will suffice to remove the contradiction between strict following of these two paragraphs?

No. The two schedules are not dependent on each other. For L.3.3.2. the parts are considered on hand and the schedule is for the production. For L.3.3.3., the schedule is simply an exercise with regard to parts obtainment and does not have bearing on L.3.3.2. schedule for production, since all parts are to be considered as on hand for that. Treat the schedule answer to L.3.3.3. as separate from L.3.3.2.

L.3.1.3. Sample Tasks Start Date for Planning Schedule planning for all Sample Tasks shall assume a start date of 1 January 2017. This parameter has been included in all schedule related templates.

Question: While it is understood that the Sample Tasks are notional, will the sample task start date be adjusted in the RFP so as to begin after contract award?

No. The anticipated award date of the RFP and the sample tasks start date are not related. The 1 January 2017 sample tasks start date is used for convenience.

Offeror submitted its signed request 01/22/15, but has not received an acknowledgment of the request.

Question: Would the Government be able to provide an estimated schedule for providing the requested documents to Offerors since those documents may be used in the Offeror’s proposal response? If there is a delay due to weather events on the East Coast, will the Government extend the response due date?

The PCO will acknowledge receipt of the request for GFI with the potential offeror. A verification to receive sensitive GFI will be accomplished with the offeror, then the documents are provided.

With respect to weather delays and RFP extension, that would be contingent the circumstance closer to the proposal due date.

L.1.1. The contracting officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition.

Question: Does the Government wish for Offerors to continue to copy Ms. Hattie Peay, Contract Specialist, on questions, concerns or other communication submitted to the CO via email as in earlier versions of the draft RFP (for redundancy) or should we submit only to the CO going forward?

Government requests Offerors continue to copy Ms. Hattie Peay on all correspondence to the PCO.

L.7.2.2 Separate Cost/Price Volumes, including cost formats (see Microsoft Excel workbook referenced at Section L.7.6.13) for FIA2T Sample Tasks shall be submitted by each major subcontractor and interdivisional transfer (IDT) (including subsidiaries) that exceeds a dollar threshold of 10 percent of the overall effort. Various undefined terms have been included without specific guidance on what is intended by their inclusion.

Question:

If we have other sister divisions of our company participating with us on FIA2T effort (or potentially future efforts) should each division submit a FFP Rate Table (inclusive of fee) AND their own escalation rate?

What specifically does the Government mean by “10 percent of the overall effort”? In asking, we would like to confirm that the Government is NOT requiring that Offerors include proposed “teaming arrangement partners’”, and/or “subcontractors” (as opposed to “major subcontractors”) submit detailed rate information unless they are proposed to perform more than 10% of the overall effort as opposed to 10% of the effort on either sample task order. Please confirm what the Government means by “overall effort” and any required distinction between teaming arrangement partners and subcontractors.

Can our subs have a different escalation rate than the Offeror?

Yes, if your company has a sister division or subcontractor that is participating in FIA2T effort or potentially future efforts, each division should submit an FFP Rate Table (inclusive of profit) and their own escalation rate.

The Government intends no distinction made between teaming arrangement partners and subcontractors, either major or minor. All usage of businesses or divisions/subsidiaries other than that of the Offeror that results in 10% or more of the effort on EITHER sample task shall include detailed rate information.

The Government is NOT requiring Offerors include proposed teaming arrangement partners as part of the proposals.

“10% of the overall effort” refers to 10% of the total proposed price of the sample task.

Subcontractors may have different escalation rates than the offeror.

Para 1.1.2 According to line item 1.1.2 of the sample WBS file (FIA2T_AtchL-4_Sample_Task_1_WBSDictionaryTemplate_20150728.xlsx), there's a reference to satisfying "the FIPS 140-2, Security Level 4 requirements". Should the reference to FIPS 140-2 in the WBS file be changed to NSA Type 1?

Answer: Yes, the reference to FIPS 140-2 should instead refer to NSA Type 1 requirements.

Production Description, Attachment L-2, GPE and GFI (Page 2) According to Sample Task 2 - ECCCA-Production Description, "Sample Task #2 consists in producing a cryptographic CCA from an overall parts list and top level drawings to meet the production requirements for this kind of item".

There's also a reference to Source files (schematics, Gerber, etc. in all relevant formats and tool setup) being provided as GFI.

Does the Govt. intend to provide Source files / top level drawings in support of Sample Task 2?

The GFI is referenced for pricing purposes only (so the Offeror does not price the task as if they had to build the layout themselves), but the GFI will not actually be provided. The Offeror must work with what is provided to estimate a price based on the parts and the board size, making reasonable judgments about layout complexity.

This is a fictional task and no prototype should be built. All requirements are stated for the Offeror to propose to meet with a design approach. No actual device verification by the Offeror is meant to be implied by the requirements.

Documents, IASRD page 21

The difference between previously released and the final version, other than admin changes, was the removal of section 22 and of TEM-2 of Section 20.

17.

The RFP references the EVMS requirements under FAR 52.234-02, 52.234-03, DFAR 252.234-7001 (Deviation), 252.234-7001, 252.234-7002 (Deviation), and 252.234-7002. Since the proposal will be less than $100 million there is a conflict in the requirements between the FAR and DFAR clauses. If a contractor or subcontractor currently does not have an ANSI/EIA-748 fully compliant EVMS system, do they need to submit a plan for compliance in the proposal per the FAR clauses or does the DFAR clause 252.234-7002 apply and a plan is not required.

A plan would only apply at the DO/TO if the value of the effort is above the $100 Million threshold.