STC_NGHH_Q_A_Set_03_12_Dec_14_Final.pdf

STC NGHH H92222‐14‐R‐0017

STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 3

H92222‐14‐R‐0017

12 December 2014

Q1: The Government has stated preference for embedded capability. However, the restrictive and specific threshold implementation requirements in the Performance Specification (proprietary ISR waveforms, extensive SBTW/SA requirements, integrated MANET, etc.), limits vendor’s ability to propose innovative, lower cost solutions that provide increased technical capability and improved operational utility. The restrictive and specific requirements will result in an overall NGHH Program Expense that is multiples higher than the $390M contract ceiling price shown in Section A. It also forces Mission Modules that are heavier and that consume more power. In L.3.1.1.2.1, the Government has stated an undefined intent to “consider Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) trade‐offs for any capability, such as the ISR receiver, that is integrated into the radio rather than being provided as a MM.”

Vendor requests the undefined trade‐off considerations and evaluation in Section L and M be fully clarified.

Vendor also requests that the ISR and SBTW/SA requirements in the RFP, Performance Specification, and evaluation criteria be modified to be Objective requirements. Thus, in addition to a fully compliant proposal, offerors will be able to propose trade‐off solutions that may result in a more desirable offer to the Government. Recommend that these other solutions not be additive to the total evaluated price.

A1: Trade off considerations will be evaluated based on the proposed technical solution. The ISR and SBTW/SA capabilities are threshold requirements. Offerors are encouraged to offer trade off solutions that may result in a more desirable offer to the Government within the scope of the NGHH Performance Specification. All threshold requirements whether embedded in the radio or proposed as a MM, will be included in the total evaluated price (TEP). Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the Performance Specification are revised in Amendment 03.

Q2: Clarification of STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 2, Q1/A1 ‐ A1 states that the Government prefers ISR and SBTW/SA to be integrated into the radio. Please confirm that any integrated capability would need to be fully compliant to the Performance Specification in order to be evaluated by the Government as a compliant offering. That is, in order for no Mission Module to be required by a vendor, the fully compliant capability would need to be fully embedded in the NGHH itself. Or, as stated in L.3.1.1.2.1, please clarify the trade‐off considerations and evaluation criteria.

A2: Yes, any integrated capability would need to be compliant with the Performance Specification. All integrated capabilities will be evaluated. Trade off considerations will be evaluated based on the proposed technical solution.

Q3: Clarification of STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 1, Q11/A11 ‐ In order for vendors to provide technically compliant and cost‐competitive ISR solutions, it is imperative that the Government release all ISR waveforms to industry. Without the release of these waveforms, the ISR capability becomes a defacto sole source award and will likely result in the ISR capability being the largest recurring cost component of the NGHH program by a significant magnitude. Please confirm that the Government will release all ISR waveforms to industry to allow for more competitive solutions at a lower cost. In addition, please define the specific release schedule dates such that it can be mapped into a competitive schedule in accordance with the RFP requirements.

A3: The Government anticipates release of the VNW waveform specification in February 2015 and will provide the specification when available. The requirement for VNW has been changed from a threshold to an objective. Offerors should plan for an ISR receiver design that facilitates integration of the waveform when the specifications are released. Performance Specification, Table 1, ISR Video Receiver, is revised in Amendment 03.

Q4: Clarification of STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 1, Q14 & A14 and Set 2, Q29 & A29 ‐ MIL‐STD‐188‐182B (IW Phase 2) was updated to be an Objective requirement (Performance Specification

3.8.1.4 Table 3) because 182B has not been implemented by UHF Satellite Controller Stations and Control Centers. Accordingly, vendor requests that STC NGHH Threshold requirements in Specification 3.8.1.4 Table 3 and L.3.1.1.1 be clarified as MIL‐STD‐188‐181C/183B.

a) This sets the STC NGHH Threshold requirement equal to 181C/183B which is the fielded Government capability for both 5khz (Narrowband) and 25Khz (Wideband) UHF SATCOM.

b) MIL‐STD‐188‐182B remains an Objective capability in consideration of a potential future Government SATCOM capability.

c) Old MIL‐STD‐188‐182A (5 kHz Narrowband SATCOM) would no longer be referenced because all requirements formerly defined in 182A are now defined in 181C/183B (Thresholds, including 5khz Narrowband requirements) and 182B (Objectives, including 5 kHz Narrowband requirements).

A4: Based on discussions with Naval Network Warfare Command (NETWARCOM), the implementation of MIL‐ STD‐188‐182B into the Primary Control Centers is anticipated in March – April 2015. MIL‐STD‐188‐182B is changed to a threshold requirement and is revised in Performance Specification Table 3, STC Waveforms, per Amendment 03.

Q5: Objective Waveforms Performance Specification 3.8.1.4 (page 18), Section M, Paragraph M.5 (page 37), and Price Matrix: The Waveforms (Netted Iridium, SATURN, MUOS‐CAI, 4G/LTE, and WNW) previously listed as P3I in Table 3 are now listed as Objective requirements. Since these waveforms are not separately priced in the Price Matrix, it appears as though the Government needs all of these Waveforms to be part of every radio purchased. Vendor doesn’t envision that every radio will need all of these Objective Waveforms.

Additionally, Netted Iridium, MUOS‐CAI, and WNW are identified as likely mission module candidates.

Recommend that the Price Matrix be modified to allow for pricing of these Objective Waveforms (either as waveforms or separate missions modules) and that the evaluation of these objective waveforms be clearly defined.

A5: The Government will not evaluate separately proposed pricing for objective waveforms. However, if an offeror chooses to include any of the objective waveforms as part of the baseline NGHH requirements the Government will consider them in the Technical Evaluation.

Q6: Multifunction Capabilities, Performance Specification 3.4 ‐ The requirements as defined in and around Performance Specification (PSpec) paragraph 3.4 Multifunctional Capabilities are very unclear as to what is a threshold or objective requirement. In addition, there is lack clarity in regards to what is a NGHH radio requirement, what is a NGHH Mission Module requirement, and what is an Application / EUD requirement (which we understand to be beyond the scope of this RFP as specified). Please clarify whether Single node Angle of Arrival (AOA) is a threshold requirement? PSpec paragraph 3.4 states “capable of” “determining Line of Bearing (LOB)”. Separately this paragraph also states that “The STC NGHH will support single node Angle of Arrival”. This could imply multi‐ node sharing of data between NGHH radios to determine LOB as well as that the NGHH be capable of interfacing to existing SIGINT devices which generate these LOBs. Please clarify minimum threshold capability.

A6: The requirement for single node AOA is a threshold requirement. NGHH shall be able to receive a signal of interest and, either internally or through the use of MM, be able to derive a line of bearing to the distant transmitter.

Q7: SBTW/SA, Performance Specification 3.4.2.1 ‐ This requirement states “Limited processing / evaluation of such signals shall be done locally on a handheld or laptop computing device connected to the NGHH”. This requirement implies some type of Application Program is required to run on an EUD. Are vendors expected to propose an Application Program? If so, how are vendors to propose pricing? What quantities of this application are planned for purchase? What EUD is the Application expected to run on? If this instead is referencing an existing Application that needs to be integrated, please confirm and provide specific details such that vendors may propose appropriate solutions.

A7: The second sentence in Performance Specification 3.4.2.1 is removed in Amendment 03.

Q8: SBTW/SA, Performance Specification 3.4.2.2 ‐ The second statement as written is applicable to an EUD/Application and not that of the NGHH. Request that this statement / requirement be deleted.

A8: The second sentence in Performance Specification 3.4.2.2 is removed in Amendment 03.

Q9: SBTW/SA, Performance Specification 3.4.2.4 ‐

a) This paragraph states “The location of the receiving NGHH devices, LOB to the intercepted signal and its location shall be collected, processed, and displayed on an external mobile device……intercepted signal”. This requirement as stated is an Application requirement and not that of the NGHH. Request that this statement/requirement be deleted.

b) This paragraph states “The sharing of this data shall be accomplished on a prearranged common channel/frequency.” Please confirm that this is a reference to the MANET channel for data sharing between nodes.

A9: The Performance Specification paragraph 3.4.2.4. is revised in Amendment 03 to read, “The NGHH Interface Control Document (ICD), including pin outs, protocols, etc., shall provide the necessary information (hardware / electrical interfaces and software protocols) to allow for an external mobile device to display the location of other NGHH devices in the network, display the LOB data derived from the intercepted signal and the frequency / mode of the intercepted signal, Position Location Information (PLI), display the LOB data derived from the intercepted signal, the frequency / mode of the intercepted signal and any other data received and processed by the NGHH. The sharing of this data shall be accomplished on a prearranged narrowband or wideband (MANET) channel/frequency. The ability to intercept signals of interest will be limited by the tuning range of the NGHH.”

Q10: MANET in Section B CLINs 0001/1001 and 0002/1002 and Price Matrix ‐ Please clarify the intent of removing the term “commercial” from the description of the MANET for CLINS 0001/1001 and 0002/1002.

A10: It was determined that the term “commercial” is not needed in describing the MANET capability and is removed from Attachment 3, Price Matrix, in Amendment 03.

Q11: High Band APCO‐25 Antenna (746‐869 MHz), Price Matrix ‐ In the Price Matrix tabs for CLIN 0001 System Items and CLIN 0002 System Items, a high band APCO‐25 Antenna (746‐869 MHz) has been added. Please advise if this deliverable antenna requirement is in error as APCO‐25 is an objective waveform.

A11: APCO 25, Phase I is a Threshold Requirement. With regard to NGHH, the radio is to tune into the 746‐869 MHz range and thus an antenna is required. If a band specific antenna is not required and the frequency range can be supported by another antenna then the proposal must so state and the specific performance of the antenna across the band shall be provided.

Q12: Embedded Formulas, Price Matrix ‐ Please provide an updated Attachment 3 Price Matrix with the following corrected formulas:

a) In Section B CLINS Row 34 (“Total CLINS/ELINS”) the sum formulas appear to be shifted one column to the left. For example, the sum formula for Year 2 (Column D) points to cells in Column C.

b) In Exhibit A Accessories Row 10 (“Total” for ELIN A001) for Year 4 (cell F10), the formula points to cells in Column G (Year 5).

c) In Exhibit A Accessories Row 223 (“Total” for ELIN A036) for Year 4 (cell F223), Year 5 (cell G223), and Year 6 (cell H223), the formulas point to ELIN A037.

A12: Formulas are removed from Attachment 3, Price Matrix, Exhibit per Amendment 03.

Q13: Answers to Question 1 and Question 31. 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.”

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.”

Increasing the BEQ for the ISR capability to every radio drives industry to an embedded solution. This change will not only increase certification risk, radio size and weight, but will also significantly increase the cost of each radio. Requiring the integration of the ISR for CLINs 0001 and 0002 fails to reflect the Government’s historic and estimated future requirements for these units. Against this background, will the Government reconsider reducing the number of ISR‐capable radios so that the evaluated price per radio better reflects the Government’s anticipated requirements? We respectfully believe that such an approach better aligns with SOCOM’s CONOPS practice of distributing video over the MANET network and will result in a more realistic best value evaluation.

A13: For evaluation purposes the ISR, SBTW/SA and SRW costs will be included in the Total Evaluated Price for

CLINs 0001 and 0002.