Questions and Answers.pdf

TEMPEST Call 03 – ARPA IDIQ, RAD TO1 and ODA2 TO2 Q&As:

Q: Is there a mechanism for companies who are looking to team to advertise that status for this solicitation? Is there a group of interested vendors that is published for this solicitation?

A: The Government checked the option in beta.SAM.gov that allows vendors to view other vendors interested in responding to this solicitation. Any Offeror interested in utilizing this mechanism should ensure they check the applicable settings in the business opportunity website (beta.SAM).

Q: Must proposers submit an IDIQ and TO1 and TO2 proposals, or could we submit other combinations

– for example, submitting an IDIQ but only one TO response. Would the Air Force consider awarding C-type contracts if bidders only responded to one TO?

Q: Section III.1 of the basic call indicates “This is an unrestricted solicitation. Small businesses are encouraged to propose on all or any part of this solicitation.” However, in section IV.2.e it directs that “Offerors must propose/submit each of the following to be considered for an IDIQ award” and it goes on to reference requirements for all three aspects (Basic, TO1, and TO2). Just to clarify, if we were interested in proposing (just for example) to X of Y Technical Tasks in TO1, would this be permissible? I interpret the section IV.2.e guidance as simply intended to indicate the elements of a proposal on each of the three aspects – not as a restriction on or conflict with section III.1 guidance on our ability to propose only to parts. However, it’s important to our evaluation that we are certain.

A: AFRL’s intent is to award Multiple Award Fair Opportunity IDIQ contracts. The Government will accept proposals for parts of the requirements; however, those proposals will be evaluated against the same criteria already established in the solicitation.

Q: Would the Air Force consider an extension to the proposal due date? Our ability to communicate with the technical POCs has been severely restricted due to the pandemic and we were surprised by this call and its technical breadth. We believe 30 days is an inadequate response time for such a broad and complex research program.

A: The Government has granted an extension to the proposal due date; it is now 21 December 2020.

Please check Call Amendment 1 for further, and more specific, instructions as to proposal submission.

Q: Reference the ARPA TO1 SOO (attachment 2) Tasks/Technical Requirements section 4.5.1: May we ask what the government’s intention is WRT the accessibility of bidders’ test environments across/to other performers? E.g. only for evaluation? Continuously for development & test? Or not at all? Question goes to the scale of work required to bid 4.5.1.

A: The paragraph discusses the need of contractor to perform integration tests on AFRL testbeds.

Contractors would have physical access to AFRL’s Test & Evaluation environment and potential access to other Contractors’ test environments via an Associate Contractor Agreement.

Q: I was reviewing the EW TEMPEST effort under FA865020S1958 and noted Call #3 has two task orders, Task Order 0001 (TO 1): Resilient Avionics Development (RAD) and Task Order 0002 (TO 2): Open

Digital Automated Architecture (ODA2). I was wondering if either of these tasks had incumbents and, if so, could you please confirm the contract numbers and contractors?

A: The requirement described in Task Order 1 leverages and evolves previous research and development accomplished under the Avionics Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation, and Protections (AVAMP)

Program, contract FA8650-16-D-1878 (Ball Aerospace) and FA8650-16-D-1712 (SiCORE). The requirement described in Task Order 2 leverages and evolves a portion of research and development accomplished under the Mission Systems Open Architecture Science and Technology (MOAST Program, contract FA8650-17-D-1700 (Leidos) and FA8650-17-D-1900 (Riverside Research).

Q: Is the expectation that all work will be done at the classified level? We have technology that we think is relevant to some of the TO1 topics.

A: No, however an Offeror must ensure that the security classification in the DD254 can be met.

Although there are no DD254s currently posted with this solicitation for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2, the security classification for both task orders is exactly the same as the draft DD254 for the Basic IDIQ contract that is currently attached to the Call as Attachment 5.

Q: Section I.3 (Schedule) lists both TO1 and TO2 as 39 months (36 technical plus 3 for final report)/Section II (Award Information) shows anticipated funding for TO1 and TO2 covering five (5) years from FY21 to FY25. Is there a significance to the 5 year funding profile in section II?

Q: Why is there a 5 year funding profile for 39 month task orders?

A: The funding profiles have been revised. Please see amendment 1 to the Call.

Q: Can we do electronic submission only?

A: Yes. Please check Call Amendment 1 for further, and more specific, instructions as to proposal submission.

Q: The Call states that individuals must have a security classification level of TS/SCI and SAR. Does this apply to all employees working on the contract?

A: No, however an Offeror must ensure that the security classification in the DD 254 can be met.

Although there are no DD254s currently posted with this solicitation for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2, the security classification for both task orders is exactly the same as the draft DD254 for the Basic IDIQ contract that is currently attached to the Call as Attachment 5.

Q: Why was the Integrated Applications and Demonstrations Laboratory listed as Base Support/Network Access?

A: The Integrated Applications and Demonstrations Laboratory was listed in error. This should have been the “Avionics Vulnerability Assessment Mitigation Protection (AVAMP)” Laboratory. Please see Amendment 1 to the Call.

Q: Where is the architecture referred to in para 4.1.2.1 which states “See example reference architecture”?

A: This statement was included in error. Task Order #2 SOO (attached to the Call) has been revised to remove the incorrect information. Please see Amendment 1 to the Call.

Q: Does the Government expect onsite contractor presence at on-base labs for WPAFB, Tinker, and should the contractor cost to establish DICE at more than two locations? (Re: Task Order #2) A: An on-site presence at on-base labs is not a requirement. As far as projecting costs, instantiation of a Digital Integrated Collaboration Environment at locations other than WPAFB could be handled by pre-configuration and shipping equipment to the location, and the Government would then control installation, as each site will have its own requirements for security, information technology, etc.

Q: Will the data sets, requirements, and test cases be provided by the Government, or will they be established as part of the work performed?

A: Data sets, requirements, and test cases will be provided by the Government. Additionally, there will be opportunity to refine these as a team (i.e., Government and industry collaboration). If there is time and opportunity, additional data sets, requirements and test cases could be accepted.

Q: For costing purposes, will Government cloud computing resources such as CloudOne, GovCloud or others be made available?

A: A Government cloud computing resource, such as CloudOne, would be made available that is consistent with the mandate from the AF Chief Software Officer.

Q: Section 8.1 relating to SCI and SAP work states: “The Government will outline specific security details and requirements in future TOs.” Does the Government want the contractor to cost SCI and SAP facilities as a part of this RFP? If so, please provide the requirements (sqft, workspace or lab space, etc.)

for anticipated SAP and SCI workspace requirements. If SAP or SCI space does not need to be costed for this TO, will the Government provide needed spaces as required during the PoP? (Re: Task Order #2) A: The Government does not expect responses to include costs for SCI or SAP facilities as part of this effort, nor for Task Order #1. Should SCI or SAP facilities be required for this effort, the Government would provide the required space during the Contract Period of Performance (PoP).

Q: Could the Government provide information on the AF DevStar methodology?

A: The DevStar methodology is available on the website of the Office of the Chief Software Officer:

https://software.af.mil/dsop/dsop-devstar/

Q: Could the Government provide information on the AF Government Avionics Reference Architecture?

A: The Government Avionics Reference Architecture can be found in a public briefing by AFLCMC. It is covered by slides 8 and 9 here:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/systems/Wed_22470_Garrett.pdf

Q: Considering the volume of requirements to capture, for purpose of readability could the TO SOWs be extended to 10 pages?

A: At this time, the Government will not consider extensions to the TO 1 or TO 2 SOWs beyond the current 10 page limit.

https://software.af.mil/dsop/dsop-devstar/ https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/systems/Wed_22470_Garrett.pdf