The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Reference
| Recommendation |
| Gov't Response |
SOW
| 1.0 |
| Strongly recommend retaining the option to provide a CDS Derivative. Also recommend global change to all reference of either "Domain Data Filter" or "Domain Data Guard" to only "Domain Data Filter". |
The Government will ensure a single vernacular is used throughout all documents
| 2.0 |
| Recommend allowing no changes to the requirement to maintain "step to jet" operations. |
The Government has no plans to change this requirement
| 4.1.1 |
| Recommend changing to: |
The Type 1 encryption device shall be capable of a minimum of four (4) levels of security (FOUO, Secret, Secret – No Foreign Nationals [NOFORN], Secret – Coalition). To provide maximum flexibility and simplify future recertification efforts, the encryptor, CDS, or CDS derivative are required to be certified or approved separately and independently updated (note: a CDS derivative may or may not require separate approvals from the encryption device, the contractor shall determine certification requirements through the NSA). The encryption device or the CDS or CDS derivative shall maintain the DGP's red/black separation capability and also meet current NSA requirements to prevent unencrypted CUI and unencrypted classified (up to the classification level Secret) information from being transmitted over the data link.
Section has been revised to clarify requirement and ensure single vernacular is used to describe compenents
| 4.1.4. |
| Recommend allowing no change to the requirement that keying material shall be “KMI Compatible”. |
The Government has no plans to change this requirement
4.2.2
Recommend changing to:
The contractor shall accomplish contractor testing (e.g., CSCI, system integration, functional, security, including TEMPEST aka Emission Security [EMSEC]), NSA testing requirements, regression, electromagnetic, to validate accomplishment of all requirements without degrading current capabilities and to satisfy certification requirements. To demonstrate that safety of flight is not violated with the host aircraft, the contractor shall conduct Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing. The contractor shall accomplish MIL-STD-461 testing to ensure system and subsystem requirements will function within their designed tolerances in their intended electromagnetic environment IAW the SRD. The contractor shall demonstrate that equipment design and performance meet requirements under environments simulated in a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)–certified facility. The contractor shall accomplish MIL-STD-810 testing IAW the SRD to determine capability of P5 SSU to perform its full array of intended functions in intended environments. The contractor shall provide the Government 30 working days (90 working days for F-35) advance notice for scheduling aircraft. The contractor shall hold, at its facilities, NSA-witnessed Security Verification Test (SVT) events. The contractor shall participate in and provide investigation, analysis, reporting and support of the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS) IAW USAF TO 00-35D-54, as requested by the Government, during contractor testing. The contractor may provide qualification by similar documentation approved by the USG.
The Government accepts this recommendation
| 4.1.1 |
| Recommend revision of SOW section 4.1.1 to eliminate the ambiguity regarding levels of security, while still preserving the requirement for unencrypted bypass that will be required to ensure interoperability with the existing Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) P5 Internal Subsystem (IS). Consider: “The Type 1 encryption device shall support single-level encryption at the Secret level.” |
| The Government will clarify the Type 1 encryptor requirement |
| Recommend directly engaging Mr Fletcher of the NCDSMO (410-854-4064, boyd.c.fletcher2.civ@mail.mil) to determine the applicability of NCDSMO policy to the envisioned Domain Data Filter |
| The Government will coordinate SSU CDS requirements with NCDSMO prior to RFP release |
| 1.0, 4.1 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 1.0 and SOW section 4.1 to select a single vernacular (CDS) describing the CDS that reflects NCDSMO policy and remove all other references to CDS derivative, Domain Data Filter, and Domain Data Guard which do not have established definitions in NSA or NCDSMO policy. |
| The Government will revise documents to use a single vernacular to the maximum extent |
| 4.1 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 4.1 to state “. . . The encryptor must be certified by the NSA, and CDS must be certified by the NCDSMO.” |
| The NCDSMO is a branch of the NSA, so requiring the NSA to certify the components is technically correct. The Government will delete verbiage suggesting how the certification will be accomplished, and only state solution shall be NSA certified |
| 4.1.1 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 4.1.1 to state “. . .the encryptor and CDS, are required to be certified/approved separately by the NSA Type 1 Office (Encryptor) and NCDSMO (CDS) and independently updated.” |
| The Government will delete verbiage suggesting how the certification will be accomplished, and only state solution shall be NSA certified |
| 4.1.2 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 4.1.2 to state “The CDS must maintain the Red/Black separation capability of the DGP and also meet current NSA requirements to prevent unencrypted CUI and unencrypted classified (up to the classification level SECRET) information from being transmitted over the data link. The CDS shall be capable of being approved and updated separately from the encryption device.” |
| The Government will change the SOW to ensure components are referred to consistently, and to state solution shall be NSA certified |
| 4.1.4 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 4.1.4 to state “The encryption device shall be stored as an unclassified Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI) when powered off.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 4.1.2 |
| Recommend modifying SOW section 4.1.2 to state “The CDS shall support the field installation of NCDSMO-approved rule sets by operating location personnel, updating the CDS to support new mission requirements, without returning the device to depot for reprogramming” |
| The Government will revise this paragraph |
| 4.2.2, 4.2.6, 4.9.5 |
| Recommend updating SOW section 4.2.2, 4.2.6, and 4.9.5, and TSRD sections 1.2, 2.11.2, and 2.11.3 to reflect that the TEMPEST requirements specified are solely associated with the encryption unit being integrated into the P5 pod, and do not apply to the legacy P5 pod design. |
| The Government will clarify the TEMPEST requirement does not apply to the legacy P5 Pod. The contractor shall be responsible for testing the DSM, end cap and associated wiring for the SSU modification. The test must be accomplished with the new components installed on the P5 pod. |
| Recommend updating SOW and TSRD to permit delivery of previously developed TEMPEST Test Plans and TEMPEST Evaluation Reports associated with any previously TEMPEST evaluated encryptors that are offered in order to save time and money. |
| Previous reports can be utilized to determine a baseline, however the test must be accomplished with the new components installed on the P5 pod. |
| 4.5.3 |
| Per section 4.5.3 there is a goal of utilizing small business subcontracting for 10% of the value. Can 2nd tier subcontractors qualify as part of that 10%, or must the full 10% be met with 1st tier subcontractors. |
| Per the Small Business Office at Hill AFB, the requirement must be met by 1st Tier Subcontractors. 2nd Tier Subcontractors do not count toward the Small Business Participation goals at all. |
| 4.9.3 |
| Recommend revising SOW section 4.9.3 to more clearly reflect that this requirement is solely intended to apply to new OS and software introduced by the SSU upgrade. |
| The Government will more clearly define this requirement only applies to new OS and S/W introduced by the SSU modification |
| Appendix B, 4.0 |
| In order to ensure there is no confusion regarding the scope of work and the intent for the listed ACAs, recommend explicitly identifying the task(s) and/or scope of effort that would be associated with each of the ACAs that are deemed necessary. Alternatively, if ACAs are deemed necessary solely for future growth under anticipated Task Orders, and will not be required until such time as those Task Orders are issued, recommend modifying SOW section Appendix B 4.0 (last sentence) to reflect, “Future task orders may require ACAs with the following companies listed below:” |
| Sentence revised to reflect the ACAs that may be required for this effort |
| SOW 4.1.3, SRD 3.2.3 |
| Recommend that the Government provide the complete Digital End Cap TDP per SOW section 4.1.3 and SRD section 3.2.3 |
| The Government will make the complete end cap TDP available to all potential vendors |
| Appendix B, 5.0 |
| Recommend that the Government evaluate any potential conflict of interest associated with either the development of requirements, or the evaluation of proposals, for this procurement |
| Appendix B, Section 5.0 inadvertently listed FMS Secure Solutions as providing technical assistance to the Government for this effort. The correct company on contract with the Government is Cyber Clarity and there are no conflict of interest issues. Section 5.0 will be updated with the correct information |
| 4.5.3 |
| Recommend the Government remove the Small Business Participation requirement (10% of total contract value) and allow industry to provide a Subcontracting Plan with committed dollars per DoD goals to avoid unnecessarily excluding any non-developmental Type 1 encryption devices from participating in this full and open competition |
| The Government has determined Small Business participation will be a factor in this effort, and a minimum overall SB subcontracting goal of 10% of the total contract is reasonable |
| 4.5.3 |
| Recommend the Government clarify the SB requirement by removing the parenthetical reference to “(first tier)” from SOW section 4.5.3 |
| The Government will clarify "first tier" |
| 4.7.3.3 |
| Recommend revising SOW paragraph 4.7.3.3 exclude obsolete legacy P5 software |
| The Government will specify this requirement is only for "new" software |
Section L
| 2.0, 7.1 |
| Recommend releasing a copy of the Model contract for review and comment |
| The RFP is the model contract |
| Cross Reference Matrix |
| Recommend clarifying the IMP requirement as it relates to the Cross-Reference Matrix and Sections L and M as a part of the proposal. Section L 4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4; and in Section M 3.3.2, 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 refer to an IMS; but there is no clear delivery requirement for an IMP input as a part of the proposal |
| There is no requirement to deliver an IMP, the requirement is to deliver an IMS based on the contractor's IMP. The SOW and CDRL have been revised to clarify the requirement |
| 4.4.1 |
| Recommend the following wording changes to remove CDS from the section, because the critical aspect is the continued red/black separation and that may not be defined by the CDS alone but by the ECU or a combination of the two (CDS & ECU) "4.4.1 Element A - NSA Compliant Architecture – The offeror shall demonstrate their proposed architecture meets current red/black separation requirements with an NSA compliant architecture. The offeror shall address all hardware and software enhancements to the P5 AS architecture they propose, as well as key system attributes their solution offers to meet current NSA security requirements. (SOW sections 1.0, 2.0, 4.1, 4.1.1 and 4.1.2)." |
The term CDS has been removed from this section
| 6.6 |
| Recommend the Government to revise Section L section 6.6 to clarify that Section J Appendix A is the worksheet identified as “P5+SSU+Pricing+Workbook+Draft+RFP.xlsx, or provide the referenced Section J Appendix A CLIN Matrix Worksheet |
| Section L has been revised to refer to the document with a single vernacular |
Section M
| 4.0 |
| Recommend all proposals include evidence of "Demonstrated Past Performance" on P5 and any related ACMI and/or encryption activity which could demonstrate the company's ability to develop, qualify, and field a successful encrypted airborne training platform. This addition to the evaluation criteria will illustrate reduced risk to the Government for offeror’s proposed solution and program execution (e.g., cost realism, schedule realism, and deliverable quality). |
The Government determined Past Performance will not be evaluated
| 5.0 |
| Recommend stating the relative importance of each subfactor within Factor 3 – TEP, as was done for the Technical and Small Business factors (i.e. if they all equal). |
| Verbiage included in RFP concerning price are IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304 |
| 5.0 |
| Recommend for all TEP subfactors, as appropriate, add a TEP color rating as Table 4 (red to purple) as was done in Table 1 for the technical rating method. Also, consider adding a risk rating as was done in Table 3 for Technical and SB Participation as appropriate (i.e. for Reasonableness and Unbalanced Pricing) |
| There will be no color rating for TEP and no changes to Sections L&M. Verbiage included in RFP concerning price are IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304. The risk rating has been deleted for SB participation |
| NOTE: |
| SB commitments |
| The Government has deleted requirement in documents that mandate SB commitments are binding and enforceable |
CDRLs
| Exhibit A |
| Recommend changing "change bars" to track changes |
Recommended change justification inadequate
| A024 |
| Recommend removing this requirement |
The Government has determined a TEMPEST Control Plan is required on this contract
| A024, B024 |
| Recommend evaluating and reconciling Tempest Control Plan requirements between the SOW and the TSRD |
| The Government has determined a TEMPEST Control Plan is required on this contract |
| A026, B026 |
| Recommend evaluating and reconciling CSPEI and SPLER requirements between the SOW and the TSRD |
| The CSPEI and SPLER are two different deliverables. The SOW list of CDRLs will be the contract requirement |
| A038, B038 |
| Recommend clarification in SOW section 4.2.8 regarding the intent for this CDRL |
| The Government has determined CDRLs A038/B038 are not necessary. The ECP CDRLs A018/B018 will serve that purpose |
| A042 |
| In "Ref Block 4", recommend removing "Add to paragraph 5 Requirements Traceability…in each IRS document." |
The Government accepts this recommendation
| A043 |
| Recommend reevaluation of CDRL A043 and revision of DD Form 1423-1 |
| CDRL A043 is required, but the DD Form 1423-1 will be revised to delete unneeded verbiage |
| A044, B044 |
| Recommend evaluation of SOW references, and clarification of the requirements for reporting associated with Monthly Status Reporting vs Hazardous Materials. Recommend considering addition of a CDRL for Hazardous Material Restricted Item Report for the latter purpose |
| The Government will revise section to delete hazardous material report CDRL requirement |
| A046, B046 |
| Recommend revising DD Form 1423-1 Block 16 to remove requirement for reporting of Contractor Acquired Property |
| The Government will revise the SOW and the DD Form 1423-1 to reflect "CAP procured by the contractor for use on the SSU program under this contract" |
| A057, B057 |
| Recommend updating DD Form 1423-1 to include Frequency and As-of Date information in Block 16, back-referenced to Block 10 and 11 |
| The Government will revise the DD Form 1423-1 to reflect frequency and As-of-Date information |
| A059, B059 |
| Recommend revising DD Form 1423-1 to reflect a single submission of Special Packaging Instructions |
| The Government accepts recommendation |
| D001 |
| Recommend evaluation and either consolidation of CDRLs A021/B021 and D001, or clarification regarding requirements associated with First Article |
| Exhibit D is specifically for first article testing. The DD Form 1423-1 specifically states each Exhibit D CDRL is only for first article testing |
| D002 |
| Recommend evaluation and either consolidation of CDRLs A025/B025 and D002, or clarification regarding requirements associated with First Article |
| Exhibit D is specifically for first article testing. The DD Form 1423-1 specifically states each Exhibit D CDRL is only for first article testing |
| D003 |
| Recommend evaluation and either consolidation of CDRLs A022/B022 and D003, or clarification regarding requirements associated with First Article |
| Exhibit D is specifically for first article testing. The DD Form 1423-1 specifically states each Exhibit D CDRL is only for first article testing |
| A016, B016 |
| Recommend updating CLIN A016 & Exhibit B CDRL B016 to reflect integration with the P5 Airborne Subsystem |
| The Government accepts recommendation |
| A040, B040 |
| Recommend clarifying and/or reconciling CDRLs A040 or B040, which are referenced as DI-MISC-81650 in SOW paragraph 4.5.5 which does not match the A040 and B040 CDRL exhibits which calls out DI-MGMT-81861A/T |
| The Government accepts recommendation and will revise CDRL to reflect correct DID |
SRD
| 3.6.11.2 |
| Radiation normally generated by the host’s avionics or electrical systems shall not interfere with the proper operation of the pod (SS-3185). |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 3.1 |
| Recommend Global change to "System Security Modules (SSM)" |
| The Government will ensure a single vernacular of Data Security Module (DSM) is used throughout all documents for the encryption unit |
| 3.2.1.8 |
| Recommend changing to "The SSU design shall not prohibit FMS exportability (objective)." |
The Government will change verbiage to state, " The SSU design shall include a configuration that is releasable to all countries employing the P5CTS (Threshold). A single SSU configuration shall meet USAF requirements and provide FMS exportablility (Objective)."
| 3.5.1.3 |
| Recommend changing to "Except for the boot/Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) code and SSM executable, all of the pod equipment RED-side executable code shall be copied from the DRD nonvolatile memory into volatile RAM upon each start-up (SS-5036)." |
The Government accepts this recommendation
3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.6.10
Recommend change to "3.6.10. (U) Altitude 3.6.10.1. The SSU shall meet requirements for Airborne Operating: From Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 70,000 (MSL) IAW MIL-STD-810G chg 1, Method 500.6, Procedure II, Operation."
The Government has deleted this section in the SRD
3.8.3.1
SSU software/firmware and hardware should work well, be easy ….
The Government accepts this recommendation
| 3.5.1.5, 3.5.1.7 |
| Recommend deletion of or rewording SRD sections 3.5.1.5 and 3.5.1.7 to reflect single-level encryption. |
| The Government will clarify the Type 1 encryptor requirement |
| 3.2.2.3, 3.11.3.1 |
| Recommend revising both SRD section 3.2.2.3 and 3.11.3.1 to state “The selected CDS shall be certified by the NCDSMO.” |
| The Government will delete verbiage suggesting how the certification will be accomplished, and only state requirement shall be NSA certified |
| 1.1, 3.2.1.1 |
| Recommend that SRD sections 1.1 and 3.2.1.1 be modified to state “The entire SSU effort is required to retain current P5CTS capabilities and performance Baseline with no degradation, other than the elimination of UHF/VHF RTKN transmission” in order to eliminate the requirements conflict |
| Requirement for UHF/VHF RTKN is no longer valid. The Government will ensure documents are corrected |
| 3.2.2.18, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.7, 3.2.3.18, 3.2.3.4 |
| Recommend changing SRD sections 3.2.2.18, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.7, and 3.2.3.18 to all state “. . . BIT LED or LED screen. . . “, and caveating SRD section 3.2.3.4 to state “Text displayed on the MEC (if applicable) . . . “ to permit the offerors to determine whether the optimal solution includes an LED text display. Alternatively, if an LED text display is an MEC feature that the Gov’t does intend to mandate, change SRD sections 3.2.2.18 to state “. . . BIT LED and LED screen . . .” so that the requirement is clear, while leaving the number of characters on the LED screen to the offeror’s discretion. |
| The Government will change RFP documents to reflect the general requirements of the MEC to permit offerors to determine optimal solution |
| 3.2.3.2 |
| Recommend modifying SRD section 3.2.3.2 to either eliminate the phrase “without external power” (“The MEC shall display operational status of the DSM to the maintainer by means of BIT LED or 10-charcater LED screen.”), or to designate such a state as an objective requirement (“The MEC shall display operational status of the DSM to the maintainer by means of BIT LED or 10-charcater LED screen. As an objective, this shall be accomplished without application of external power.”) |
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will change RFP documents to reflect new verbiage |
| 3.2.3.7 |
| Recommend reverting SRD section 3.2.3.7 to the baseline P5 requirement SS-3546 (“The AS GO/NO-GO indicator shall not interfere with aircrew night vision equipment”) to permit offerors to determine the most cost-effective solution to meet the requirement – either leveraging the legacy indicators which have already been assessed as compliant, or implementing alternative indictors while implementing additional logic to extinguish the alternative indicators. |
| The Government rejects this recommended verbiage change in the SRD, the user input is to have the MEC designed to not interfere with aircrew night vision equipment as legacy indicators are currently non-compliant |
| 3.2.3.9 |
| The DEC TDP replaces the legacy DS-101 connector with a 19-pin connector. The requirement in 3.2.3.9 to use the existing DS-101 key port could be interpreted as precluding the use of this 19-pin connector. Recommend revising 3.2.3.9 to state “The MEC keying port shall provide a means to key both the new encryptor (DSM) and the GPS”. |
| The Government agrees with recommendation and will change verbiage to read "The MEC keying port shall provide a means to key both the new encryptor (DSM) and the GPS, additionally the new port shall be compatible with standard AF COMSEC equipment" (3.5.3.2 added to clarify requirement |
| 3.2.3.8 |
| Recommend modifying SRD section 3.2.3.8 to state “The MEC shall allow keying and zeroization of the DSM.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation. The requirement for "no external power" is for the encryptor not the MEC |
| 3.5.3.4 |
| Recommend modifying SRD 3.5.3.4 to state “The SSU key loading methodology shall not require the application of prime power prior to installation on aircraft. As an objective, the encryptor shall accept keys without application of prime power.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| new paragraph (3.5.3.9) |
| Recommend additional SRD requirement to state “The SSU encryptor zeroization methodology shall not require the application of prime power to return the encryptor to an unclassified CCI state. As an objective, the encryptor shall zeroize keys without application of prime power.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 3.2.2.1 |
| Recommend updating SRD section 3.2.2 to reflect the SWaP requirements of SOW section 4.1 to permit maximum flexibility to all offerors, while still maintaining the requirement to meet overall pod SWaP constraints |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 3.2.1.10 |
| Recommend updating SRD section 3.2.1.10 to state “. . . allowing any programmed DRD to be inserted into any pod that has been updated to the SSU configuration without having to reprogram the DRD.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 3.8.2.2 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 3.8.2.2. to reflect the requirements of the baseline P5 SSS: “Chemical conversion coating and anodizing of aluminum alloys shall conform to MIL-C-5541 and MIL-A-8625, respectively.” |
| The Government accepts this recommendation |
| 3.2.1.8 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 3.2.1.8 to state specific exportability requirements. |
| The Government will change verbiage to state, "The SSU design will not prohibit FMS exportability (objective) however, exportability is not to be a driving factor in SSU design nor override US Air Force requirements." |
| 3.2.1.9 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 3.2.1.9 to state the specific criteria required to support the use of the P5 pod with SSU modifications on non-U.S. aircraft participating in US exercises under the control of US personnel. |
| The Government will delete section 3.2.1.9 in its entirety |
| 3.8.1.1 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 3.8.1.1 to state “The DSM Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) shall be at least 30,000 hours” |
| The Government will accept recommendation, and add MTBF of MEC and wiring. Also added requirement that new components will not degrade MTBF of existing AS |
| 3.6.7, 3.6.7.1, 3.6.7.2 |
| SRD section 3.6.7, 3.6.7.1, and 3.6.7.2 all appear to only require vibration testing for the DSM. Recommend revising these sections to clarify that vibration testing will be required for both the DSM and the MEC. |
| The Government agrees environmental testing is required on all SSU components, not just the DSM |
| 3.6.7.1 |
| SRD section 3.6.7.1 references Figures 10 and 11. Recommend revising to reference Figures 9 and 10. |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.7.2 |
| SRD section 3.6.7.2 references Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15. Recommend revising to reference figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.7.1 |
| Recommend inserting additional figure to represent the Vertical Random Vibration Profile appropriate for the MEC, and cross-referencing figure from SRD section 3.6.7.1 |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.7.1 |
| Recommend inserting additional figure to represent the Lateral Random Vibration Profile appropriate for the MEC, and cross-referencing figure from SRD section 3.6.7.1 |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.7.1, 3.6.7.2 |
| Recommend updating Figure 11 caption to reflect “Lateral USAF Buffet Profile” and referencing from SRD section 3.6.7.2 instead of 3.6.7.1. |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| Figure 12 |
| Recommend updating Figure 12 caption to reflect “Vertical USAF Buffet Profile” |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| Figure 13 |
| Recommend updating Figure 13 caption to reflect “Lateral USN Level 1 Buffet Profile” |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| Recommend review and validation of the higher frequency power spectral density requirements |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| Figure 15 |
| Recommend updating Figure 15 caption to reflect “Lateral USN Level 2 Buffet Profile” |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| Figure 16 |
| Recommend updating Figure 16 caption to reflect “Vertical USN Level 2 Buffet Profile.” Recommend reviewing this figure to determine if it is what was intended for Vertical USN Level 2 Buffet Vibration profile. Inspection of the figure indicates a very strong resonance at 50 Hz and above. The origin of this power spectral density response is not clear. Recommend reviewing and validating the higher frequency power spectral density requirements. |
| The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.2 |
| Recommend SRD section 3.6.2 be revised to reflect that both the DSM and the MEC will require shock testing |
| The Government agrees environmental testing is required on all SSU components, not just the DSM. The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.6.9.1, 3.6.9.2 |
| Recommend SRD sections 3.6.9.1 and 3.6.9.2 be revised to separately specify the shock requirements for the MEC versus the DSM |
| The Government agrees environmental testing is required on all SSU components, not just the DSM. The Government will delete specific environmental requirements listed in SRD, and will only state contractor shall meet latest MIL-STD-810 requirements |
| 3.2.1.2 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor, M&S Lab, and Flight Testing |
| Because SIL is contractor testing, will delete the SIL column from the matrix |
| 3.2.1.3 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor, M&S Lab, and Flight Testing |
| Because SIL is contractor testing, will delete the SIL column from the matrix |
| 3.2.1.4 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor, M&S Lab, and Flight Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.1.5 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor, M&S Lab, and Flight Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.4 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.5 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.8 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.9 |
| Recommend verification of this be conducted through contractor testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.11 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.16 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.17 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.18 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.19 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.2 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.3 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.4 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor, M&S Lab, and Flight Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.6 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.7 |
| Recommend deferring to the second line in SRD Table E2 cross-referencing to SRD section3.2.3.7 |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.9 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.10 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.3.11 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.1.2 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.1.3 |
| Recommend changing the verification methodology to Analysis through Contractor verification |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.1.5 |
| Recommend changing the verification methodology to Analysis & Test through contractor & M&S Lab Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.1.7 |
| Recommend verification be limited to contractor and M&S Lab testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.2.1 |
| Recommend the verification methodology be changed to Analysis through Contractor verification |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.2.2 |
| Recommend the verification methodology be changed to Analysis through Contractor verification |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.5.3.5 |
| Recommend the verification methodology be changed to Analysis through Contractor verification |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.8.2.1 |
| Recommend verification solely through Inspection at Contractor Testing |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 3.2.2.14 |
| Recommend deleting the parenthetical examples in SRD section 3.2.2.14 |
| Deleting requirement |
| 3.2.1.2 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 3.2.1.2 to state “. . . shall be interoperable with existing P5CTS Block 4/4A USAF and USN range infrastructure . . . “ |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 1.1 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 1.1 to state “Ensure all mission data, classified and unclassified, is erased and unrecoverable . . .” |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
| 1.1 |
| Recommend revising SRD section 1.1 to state ". . . after removing the Data Recording Device (DRD) and powering down the pod". |
| Accepted. Government will edit document to correct. |
IASRD
| Recommend the Government provide all offerors with the IASRD and allow 30 days to review and provide feedback within the context of the overall DRFP. |
| The IASRD has been transmitted/mailed to all interested vendors. The Government will not extend the window for DRFP comments |
| Recommend providing all offerors with the IASRD to permit evaluation of the requirements referenced in SOW 4.1.3, SOW 4.3.1, or SRD 3.2.2.18. |
| The IASRD has been transmitted/mailed to all interested vendors |
| Recommend IASRD, UPA, SSAPD, and TMCR be provided to all offerors, along with a 30-day extension on the review period to support thorough assessment. |
| The Government will transmit all referenced/required documents prior to or with the RFP. The Government will not extend the window for DRFP comments |
CLINS
| 0001 |
| Recommend CLIN 0001 and 0002 clearly state their relationship to applicable SOW paragraphs and if these CLINs are in fact First Article CLINs to clear any confusion with CLIN 0011. |
| The Government will clarify CLIN structure to include separate CLIN for FAT. Additionally, AFMC Form 260 will be included with RFP |
| 0001 |
| Recommend CLIN 0001 provide the desired quantity required for delivery if other than 1. Note that CLIN 0002 states 8. |
| Clarify CLIN 0002 will be for a Quantity of "1". NOTE: The quantity identified on the RFP does not represent the quantities to be ordered throughout the life of the contract. It is simply a placeholder for the IDIQ, hence the "Estimated Quantity". Individual task orders will identify the quantity ordered for that specific action. |
| 0002 |
| Recommend clarifying how and when CLIN 0002 “Estimated Total Amount’ will become a contractual obligation. |
| Clarify CLIN 0002 will be for a Quantity of "1". NOTE: The quantity identified on the RFP does not represent the quantities to be ordered throughout the life of the contract. It is simply a placeholder for the IDIQ, hence the "Estimated Quantity". Individual task orders will identify the quantity ordered for that specific action. |
| 0011 |
| Recommend clarifying the purpose for the CLIN 0011, how it will differ from CLINs 0001 and 0002, and under what conditions CLIN 0011 would not be required as a First Article CLIN. Update the desired quantity required for delivery if other than 1 if appropriate. Add reference to SOW 4.2.7 within CLIN 0011 to clearly differentiate. |
| The Government will clarify CLIN structure to include separate CLIN/subCLINs for FAT test and qualification, kits and data. Additionally, AFMC Form 260 will be included with RFP |
| 0012 |
| Recommend clarifying the CLIN 0012 data and how this data is associated with CLIN 0001, 0002, and 0011 (i.e. CLIN 0011 and CLIN 0012 appear related, but it is not clear if CLIN 0012 is “if required” in the same manner as CLIN 0011) |
| The Government will clarify CLIN structure to include separate CLIN/subCLINs for FAT test and qualification, kits and data. Additionally, AFMC Form 260 will be included with RFP |
Pricing Worksheet
| Recommend the Government clarify if Year 1 starts 12 months after contract award or at the beginning of each Government Fiscal Year. |
| The Government stated in the instructions Yr 1 is from contract award plus 12 months |
| Recommend the Government provide a funding profile identifying highest, lowest, and most probable quantity for each year of performance as funding is likely the limiting factor to the quantity of deliveries that can be achieved each year. |
| The Government expects the vendor to state best quantity price breaks |
| Recommend the pricing worksheet and instructions be amended to support additional quantity ranges if there are additional Economic Order quantity breaks |
| The Government will revise instructions to ensure additional price breaks are allowable in the pricing worksheet |
Consistent Vernacular
| Recommend standardizing on “DSM” as it is used most prevalently, or clearly defining the difference so that the intent of the use of SSM versus DSM can be better understood |
| The Government will edit documents to standardize vernacular |
| Recommend defining “SSU” in the same manner as defined in SOW 4.1 “The encryption device, CDS, and End Cap are referred to as “P5 SSU””, and ensuring that the use is consistently applied throughout the SRD |
| The Government will edit documents to standardize vernacular |
| Recommend adopting the consistent vernacular of “Modified End Cap” as in the SRD |
| The Government will edit documents to standardize vernacular |
Various Errata
| SRD section 1.1 closing sentence is incomplete: “This effort also requires modifying or replacing the current end cap to provide keying of the encryption device and other operational.” Recommend completing sentence to define the full requirement. |
| The Government will edit document to correct. |
| SRD Figure 6 “Conceptual Pod AIM-9 Interface Diagram” does not show any MIL-STD-1553 data and Remote Terminal Address connection between the ADIU and the AIM-9 Umbilical Connection. The current pod configuration does provide for such a connection when used with the proper umbilical, without a Universal Serial Adapter (USA), and connected to an appropriate host aircraft launcher rail and wing station, emulating an AIM-9X. This omission in Figure 6 could be construed as intending for the removal of this connection. If this is not the case, we recommend that Figure 6 be revised to reflect the MIL-STD-1553 data bus and Remote Terminal Address connections, and Red/Black separation, analogous to that depicted in Figure 7 “Conceptual Pod AIM-120 Interface Diagram”. |
| The Government will edit document to correct. |
| SRD Table E2 includes several rows with apparently erroneous cross-references to SRD paragraphs, including the rows for 3.2.2.89, 3.2.2.15, 3.2.2.20, 3.2.3.12, 3.2.4.1, 3.3.1.4, and 3.8.7.2. Recommend evaluation and correction. |
| The Government will edit document to correct. |
| Section M section 4.0 which identifies the proposal volume for SB participation as Volume 4 is in conflict with Section L which shows this as Volume 3. To avoid confusion, recommend revising Section M section 4,0 to refer to Volume 3. |
| The Government will correct volume references in the Section M document |
| SOW section 4.9 appears to require subdivision to separately break out discussion of System Security Working Group into SOW section 4.9.1. |
| Comment does not adequately justify changes to this paragraph |
| SOW section 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.5.6, and 4.7.1 all reference a System Performance Specification (SPS). Recommend that the references be reviewed and either (a) eliminate the SPS references so that each SOW paragraph stands on its own without the separate reference document, or (b) reference the SRD, and then ensure that the SRD is appropriately modified to provide suitable guidance on First Article Test, CSCI Testing, Risk Management, and Quality Assurance. |
| The Government will delete references to the SPS, and reference requirements documents instead |
| Section M, section 3.3.1 Element A- Kit Component Readiness Levels requires the contractor to self-assess their TRL and MRL for their Type-1 Encryptor candidate and their hardware CDS (if incorporated) candidate. Recommend specific criteria for assessing this MRL. For example, how a TRL 6 will be assessed against a TRL 9 as it relates to determining if the offeror meets or exceeds the requirements. As presented, it appears the criteria is primarily scoring the accuracy of the self-assessment as opposed to meeting or exceeding a certain established requirement |
| The Government will clarify this evaluation area |