Q_A_Set_2_-17_Nov_14_-Final.pdf

STC NGHH H92222‐14‐R‐0017

STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 2

H92222‐14‐R‐0017

17 November 2014

Q1: RFP Price Matrix ‐ The description of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 describe the SBTW/SA and ISR

Video Receive capabilities as part of the main CLIN description and thus implies that the pricing for

SBTW/SA and ISR Video Receive should be included in CLIN 0001 and 0002. Separately, CLIN A040 requests pricing for "Other Mission Modules (e.g. ISR Receiver, SBTW/SA)”. In addition, Section

L.3.1.1.2.1 instructions state, "Any capability that is provided as a MM rather than integrated into the radio will be considered an ancillary device, priced separately and not be considered as part of the baseline radio”. This information appears to be conflicting. We interpret this to mean that the "base radio” (CLINs 0001 & 0002) as delivered should be "capable of supporting” these mission modules (i.e.

no changes to base radio software); however the Mission Modules themselves are not included, nor priced, into each "base radio” CLIN when determining a CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 price. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct or provide further clarification.

A1: The Government prefers the ISR Receiver and Signals Based Threat Warning / Situational Awareness

(SBTW/SA) be integrated into the radio and priced under Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 and

0002. If they are not integrated into the radio, and they are instead provided as Mission Modules, then the Mission Modules should be priced separately in Attachment 3, Exhibit A and not included in the price of CLINs 0001 and 0002. For evaluation purposes Mission Module prices from Attachment 3, Exhibit A will be added to CLINs 0001 and 0002 to derive total unit cost.

Q2: RFP Price Matrix, CLIN 0006, Exhibit D, Preplanned Product Improvements (P3I) ‐ There are no quantities associated with the Preplanned Product Improvements identified in ELINs D0001 through

D0005. Lack of quantities in this area makes it very difficult to accurately price NRE and RE as well as software versus hardware mission module options. Request that expected notional quantities be identified to allow vendors to accurately price these items.

A2: Attachment 3, Exhibit D, Pre‐Planned Product Improvements (P3I) is removed in its entirety in

Amendment 02.

Q3: RFP Price Matrix, CLIN 0006, Exhibit D, Preplanned Product Improvements ‐ The Preplanned

Product Improvements identified in ELINs D0001 through D0005 each indicate applicability to either

CLIN 0001 or CLIN 0002 in their description. As an example, ELIN D0001 appears to indicate applicability to CLIN 0001 only. Does this imply that certain P3I modules are intended ONLY for urban use and certain other P3I modules are intended ONLY for maritime use? Or is each P3I intended to be applicable for both CLINs 0001 and CLIN 0002?

A3: Attachment 3, Exhibit D, Pre‐Planned Product Improvements (P3I) is removed in its entirety in

Amendment 02. The requirement is for all Mission Modules to be compatible and interoperable with both the CLINs 0001 and 0002.

Q4: Performance Specifications 6.2.1 and 11.2.1 appear to be in conflict. We believe paragraph 11.2.1 should be deleted in its entirety and paragraph 6.2.1 be reworded as follows:

"The MTBMCF for the NGHH shall not be less than 10,251 hours. This MTBMCF will provide a 90%

Mission Reliability given a worst case mission scenario of 1,080 operating hours.”

A4: The Performance Specification paragraph 6.2.1 is revised and paragraph 11.2.1 is removed from Amendment 02.

Q5: Performance Specification 3.1.1 NGHH System Components defines a list of items that shall be part of the device kit. This list has significant differences with the list of items defined in the RFP

Attachment 3 Price Matrix (Tabs for CLINs 0001/0002 System Items). Please clarify the solicitation to show exactly which system items must be included in the pricing and packaging/shipments for CLINs

0001 and 0002.

A5: Performance Specification paragraph 3.1.1 and Attachment 3, Tabs “CLINS 0001/0002 System Items” are revised in Amendment 02.

Q6: Performance Specification 5.1.1 cites MIL‐STD‐461G however this requirement has not been released at the present time. Request that the requirement be revised to reflect MIL‐ STD‐461F.

A6: Performance Specification paragraph 5.1.1 is revised in Amendment 02.

Q7: Section B of the RFP shows that Inspection/Acceptance for all CLINS will be at Destination. This is inconsistent with Section E which shows Inspection/Acceptance at Origin for CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, 0006, and 0007. Please clarify that I/A will take place at Origin.

A7: Section B and Section E of the Request for Proposal (RFP) are not inconsistent with each other.

Section B states “FOB: Destination” which refers to the actual shipping of the items specified under each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Offerors are responsible for shipping items listed under FOB Destination. CLIN 0006, Pre‐planned Product Improvements, is removed under Amendment 02.

Section E is for inspection and acceptance of the items specified under each CLIN. Origin stipulates that inspection and acceptance (I/A) will take place at the Contractor’s facility. Destination stipulates I/A will take place at the CLIN’s Ship To location. Having I/A at Origin is not incompatible with FOB Destination;

I/A will be completed prior to the Contractor shipping the item to its Ship To location.

Q8: Exhibit A, A019 ‐ A024 Quantity Ranges 1‐25, 50 and Up Please update the pricing tables to ensure that all quantities are covered. As currently printed they appear to exclude any orders in the quantity range 26‐49.

A8: Exhibit A, A019 – A024 quantity ranges are revised in Amendment 02.

Q9: RFP Price Matrix, CLIN 0006, Exhibit D, Preplanned Product Improvements : The note under each

ELIN says “Recurring qty will be the qty used for CLIN 0001 for that given year” for part of the P3I CLINs and “recurring qty will be the qty used for CLIN 0002 for that given year” for others. Is this correct?

A9: Attachment 3, Exhibit D, Pre‐Planned Product Improvements (P3I) is removed in its entirety in Amendment 02.

Q10: Attachment 1‐Performance Specification sites Section 2.1.4‐Other Government Documents, Drawings, and Publications. We would like to request access to the following documents listed in the

RFP and Specification: EKMS (KMI) 308F* and EKMS (KMI) 322 Rev C.

A10: EKMS (KMI) 308F* and EKMS (KMI) 322 Rev C are restricted documents and will be provided upon request by offerors to the Contracting Office POCs identified in 5652.215‐9016. In order to obtain restricted documents offerors must possess the appropriate personnel and facility clearance. All clearance information will be verified through the Defense Security Service (DSS) before documents are mailed out. RFP Section L is revised in Amendment 02 to clarify the process for requesting classified specifications.

Q11: RFP Section L, does not specify a Proposal Section where we can list Assumptions. Will the Government specify where Offeror Assumptions can be provided?

A11: No assumptions should be included in the proposal. If an offeror has questions related to the

Government’s requirements then they should be submitted to resolve any uncertainties.

Q12: Is there a cut‐off date for questions? Does the Government commit to answering questions at any time since no due date has been established?

A12: Offerors may ask questions up to the proposal due date, but are cautioned that any questions asked within the last week may not be answered prior to the proposal due date.

Q13: Can the Government provide a date that they anticipate issuing answers to questions as the answers to questions may have a significant impact on the proposal schedule and approach?

A13: Responses are posted to FBO as soon as possible, but there is no set timeline.

Q14: Will the Government consider extending the Proposal Due Date to enable at least 20 days after issuance of answers to Questions?

A14: The Government will not commit to extending the Proposal Due Date any number of days after the issuance of answers to questions. The Government may extend based on responses to questions.

Q15: RFP Section C‐Statement of Work Section 3.0.2.1 Configuration Management states: “The Contractor shall conduct a Configuration management (CM) program IAW …”. Does the Government use a particular tool for Configuration Management that they would prefer the Offeror to use?

A15: No, the Government does not have a particular tool that Offerors should use, however, the Program shall be IAW commercial best practices as defined in MIL HDBK 61A as stated in SOW paragraph 3.0.2.1.

Q16: RFP Section C‐Statement of Work Section 12.0‐Program Status Website. Is there a specific tool that the Government prefers for the Program Status Website?

A16: No.

Q17: Performance Specification Section 3.7.2.1 – Specifies that “The NGHH shall be capable of functioning as a subscriber in a Secret and Below (SAB) network using the appropriate NSA approved algorithms. As an Objective (O) the MANET functionality shall also be capable of using Type 1, Suite A encryption”. Can the Government define “subscriber”?

A17: The term “subscriber” refers to a member and/or node in a MANET network with full operational transmit and receive capability and nothing else.

Q18: The Performance Specification Section 3.7.4.1 – 3.7.4.4 – Talks about Standalone devices, members and Master Subscriber Terminals. The following questions are submitted:

1. Can the Government define how a MANET device would perform as a “standalone” device?

2. Can the Government define “Member”?

3. Can the Government define “Master Subscriber Terminal?”

A18:

1. Paragraph 3.7.4.1 refers to the Narrowband capability of the radio, not how the MANET would perform as a standalone capability. The Government does not expect a MANET device to function in a “standalone” configuration. Performance Specification, paragraph 3.7.4.1 is revised in Amendment 02.

2. The term “member” refers to a subscriber and/or node in a MANET network with full operational transmit and receive capability and nothing else.

3. The reference to MST is removed and Performance Specification paragraph 3.7.4.4 was revised under Amendment 01.

Q19: Performance Specification Section 3.8.3.4 – References Table 1. Should this reference Table 3 instead of Table 1?

A19: Yes. Performance Specification 3.8.3.4 revised in Amendment 02.

Q20: RFP Section L.1.3 specifies that all proposals shall not contain classified information. Some relevant past performance is currently considered classified. Would a direct submittal to the Government of a classified Past Performance be accepted?

A20: No, the Government will not accept any classified information in Offeror’s proposal submittals.

However, Offeror’s may provide unclassified information and a Government Point of Contract who is willing to speak to the Past Performance Evaluator on classified past performance efforts. All discussion with the Point of Contact provided will remain unclassified.

Q21: Attachment 3 Price Matrix – Describes different accessories anticipated for the system. If different accessories are required, can the specific price sheet be modified to allow for these accessories?

A21: No, the price matrix may not be modified to add additional accessories.

Q22: Performance Specification Section 3.11 and 3.12 – Section 3.11 state that the “NGHH (a US Type 1 platform) shall be capable of processing voice and/or data classified up to TS/SCI.” Section 3.12 states an objective for the NGHH to be considered non‐CCI. This section also references that TSVCIS shall take precedence over written specifications. Can the Government provide access to the TSVCIS?

A22: The TSVCIS will be provided upon request by potential offerors to the Contracting Office POCs identified in 5652.215‐9016. The TSVCIS contains both unclassified and classified areas; however the Government will only provide the TSVCIS to Offerors with the ability to obtain the classified area. In order to obtain classified documents Offerors must possess the appropriate personnel and facility clearance. All clearance information will be verified through the Defense Security Service (DSS) before being mailed out. RFP Section L.1.3 is added in Amendment 02 to clarify the process for requesting classified specifications.

Q23: Attachment 3 Price Matrix – Exhibit C Repairs. The price matrix asks for annual pricing – without knowing how many units will be fielded each year should this be provided per unit or per labor hour?

A23: Offerors should propose Firm Fixed Price repairs per unit.

Q24: RFP Section C –Statement of Work paragraph 2.0.1 Contractor Product Design Specifications – This specifies both Next Generation Handheld Radio (NGHH) Product Design Specification (Contractor Specific) and Fixed Mount Components for the STC NGHH Platform Configuration (Contractor Specific).

Are the Specifications to be incorporated in one document, or submitted separately?

A24: The product design specifications for the Fixed Mount Components may be provided as a separate document or included in the NGHH product design specification.

Q25: RFP Section L.1.9 – Proposal Format requires all text to be one and one half spaced. Can text in tabled be single spaced? Can the graphics be single spaced?

A25: Amendment 01 clarifies the proposal format must have one and one half spaced lines. This applies to both tables and graphics. Paragraph L.1.9 is amended as Paragraph L.1.10.

Q26: RFP Section L.1.10 Proposal Submission Requirements specifies which documents do not count against the Volume 2, 75 page count. Section L.3.2, Subfactor 2 requires a “detailed schedule”. Will the Government include the Schedule as one of the items that does not count against page count?

A26: Yes as revised in Amendment 02. Paragraph L.1.10 is revised as L.1.11.

Q27: In reviewing the Performance Specification, Section 3.11 Information Security (INFOSEC) refers to the official NSA document entitled: Tactical Secure Voice Cryptographic Interoperability Specification

(TSVCIS) which will take precedence over the encryption capabilities for NGHH. We would like to request these documents which we understand include both unclassified and classified components.

How can we arrange to receive these documents to aid in our response?

A27: The TSVCIS will be provided upon request by potential offerors to the Contracting Office POCs identified in 5652.215‐9016. The TSVCIS contains both unclassified and classified areas; however the Government will only provide the TSVCIS to Offerors with the ability to obtain the classified area. In order to obtain classified documents Offerors must possess the appropriate personnel and facility clearance. All clearance information will be verified through the Defense Security Service (DSS) before being mailed out. RFP Section L.1.3 is added in Amendment 02 to clarify the process for requesting classified specifications.

Q28: Does the extended proposal due date of November 25, 2014 @ 2:30 PM also apply to the due date for the past performance questionnaires?

A28: The Past Performance Questionnaire due date is revised under Amendment 02.

Q29: Will USSOCOM please correct the IW Phase I requirement to state “MIL‐STDs 188‐181C/183B” in

Solicitation L.3.1.1.1, Performance Specifications 3.5.3.3 and 3.8.1.4 Table 3 ‐ STC Waveforms?

Background: The revised (Amendment 0001) threshold requirement for IW Phase I is inaccurately stated as MIL‐STDs 188‐181C/182A/183B. 182A cannot be integrated with 181C and 183B, because

182A is DAMA, and 181C/183B are IW.

• DAMA is MIL‐STDs 188‐181B/182A/183A

• IW Phase I is MIL‐STDs 188‐181C/183B

• IW Phase II is MIL‐STD 188‐182B and is accurately stated as an objective in 3.8.1.4 Table 3.

• IW Phase I/II is MIL‐STD‐188‐181C/182B/183B

A29: The Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) and the Integrated Waveform (IW) standards are independent waveforms that should be able to be instantiated/operated independently of one another on the same radio. Furthermore, it is the Controller Station that determines which standard will be used on the net based upon the capabilities of the radios in the network. To date the Controller Stations have not implemented MIL‐STD‐188‐182B and thus the requirement for Narrowband demand services can only be satisfied through the implementation of MIL‐STD‐188‐182A. If an offeror prefers to propose MIL‐

STD‐188‐182B instead of MIL‐STD‐188‐182A then that is certainly acceptable.

Q30: Power Adapter Interface (PAI): Performance Specification 3.14.2.3 states that the PAI shall interface with DC power sources such as the SOPS kit (which includes AC‐DC and DC‐DC power supply), and to commercial vehicles 12 and 24 VDC. Because 3.14.2.3 requires an interface with DC power sources only, at Performance Specification 3.1.2, will USSOCOM please delete the portion of the

PAI requirement that requires an Alternating Current (AC) input cable?

A30: Performance Specification, paragraph 3.1.2 is revised accordingly in Amendment 3.

Q31: Price Matrix ‐ ELIN A040 Mission Modules for ISR and SBTW/SA: In order for industry to fully consider tradeoffs related to SWaP, performance, R&D investments, and price; will USSOCOM please provide information on the anticipated quantities for each of the ELIN A040 ISR mission modules, SRW mission modules, and SBTW/SA missions modules (i.e 3,000 or % of BOI to be fielded)?

A31: Anticipated quantities for ISR, SRW and SBTW/SA capabilities on a one for one basis per radio.

Anticipated CLIN 0001 and 0002 quantities provided in section A of the RFP, Amendment 02.

Q32: Regarding OTAZ at Performance Specifications 3.12.5.5 and 3.12.5.7: Current OTAM approaches to OTAZ do not allow an override for OTAZ. The override concept seems contradictory to the primary operational need to remotely zeroize a radio that has been lost, captured, or compromised. It seems unlikely that the NSA would allow an over‐ride “back door” that would prevent a critical security action like OTAZ from occurring.

1. Has NSA confirmed for USSOCOM that this is a NSA certifiable requirement?

2. Please clarify what constitutes “proper authentication” that is strong enough to override an operationally critical and NSA certified action such as OTAZ?

32A: All references to the Over‐the‐Air Zero (OTAZ) function found in the NGHH Performance

Specification paragraphs 3.12.5.3, 3.12.5.4, 3.12.5.5, 3.12.5.7, Appendix A (Acronym List) and Appendix B

(Glossary) are deleted under Amendment 02.

Q33: RFP Price Matrix Exhibit D states: Recurring qty will be the qty used for CLIN 0001/0002 for that given year. Exhibit D has only one recurring price per year, while CLINs 0001 and 0002 both offer the following

Quantity Ranges for pricing:

1‐99 100‐499 500‐999 1000‐1999 2000 and Up

This appears to be inconsistent. Will USSOCOM please clarify their intent regarding quantity ranges for P3I Recurring?

A33: Attachment 3, Exhibit D, Pre‐Planned Product Improvements (P3I) is removed in its entirety in

Amendment 02.

Q34: Regarding Performance Specification 2.1.4, what is the appropriate procedure to follow to obtain the classified documents cited in the RFP/Specification?

A34: Classified documents will be provided upon request by potential offerors to the Contracting Office POCs identified in 5652.215‐9016. For instance, the TSVCIS contains both unclassified and classified areas; however the Government will only provide the TSVCIS to Offerors with the ability to obtain the classified area. In order to obtain classified documents Offerors must possess the appropriate personnel and facility clearance. All clearance information will be verified through the Defense Security Service (DSS) before being mailed out. RFP Section L.1.3 is added in Amendment 02 to clarify the process for requesting classified specifications.

Q35: Are offerors allowed to hand‐deliver proposals to the submission address listed in the RFP?

A35: No. Proposals must be mailed. Hand‐delivered proposals will not be accepted.