STC_NGHH_Q_A_Set_1_-_3_Nov_14.pdf

STC NGHH RFP H92222‐14‐R‐0017

STC NGHH Questions & Responses Set 1

H92222‐14‐R‐0017

3 November 2014

Q1: Clause 5652.215‐9016 states “All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Office. Questions shall be sent to the following point of contact: Ms. Michelle Cames, USSOCOM, SORDAC‐K, 7701 Tampa Point Blvd., MacDill AFB, FL 33621‐5323, Ms. Michelle Cames, michelle.cames@socom.mil.” Is submitting questions by email only acceptable?

A1: Yes, all questions in regards to the solicitation should be sent by email to Ms. Michelle Cames, michelle.cames@socom.mil, and Ms. Leatrice Frederick, frederl@socom.mil.

Q2: When must we submit our questions by in order to receive a response from the Government?

How long will it be before responses are posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website?

A2: 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. Responses are posted to FBO as soon as possible, but there is no set timeline.

Q3: The dates on the RFP attachments do not match the dates listed under Section J in the RFP.

A3: The dates on the RFP Attachments are correct. The dates listed under Section J in the RFP will be revised in Amendment 01.

Q4: Request the Government modify the solicitation to require only that offerors have a realistic, achievable technical approach and schedule for achieving certification prior to first deliveries (18 months After Contract Award (ACA) rather than requiring offerors have a product with all the Critical Performance Capabilities (CPCs) inherent in it at time of proposal submission as currently states in the following paragraph in Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP):

L.3.1.1.1 The offerors’ STC NGHH technical solution shall meet the following capabilities outlined within the Government’s PS at time of proposal submission. Offerors shall provide copies of applicable certifications (JITC, NSA, Etc.) for the following CPCs;

A4: The Government’s intent is to verify that prospective offerors possess the knowledge and experience in providing the waveforms and capabilities found in current SOF handheld radios. Thus RFP paragraphs

L.3.1.1.1 and M.3.1.1.1 are revised under Amendment 01.

Q5: The concept of a “Mission Module” is assumed throughout the solicitation as a means of meeting the Government’s desire for a wide range of modular capabilities for the NGHH.

However, the concept “Mission Module” itself is nowhere defined in the solicitation and the applicability of specific requirements to the “Mission Module” while addressed to some degree in the Questions & Answers published contemporaneous with the solicitation, is not addressed anywhere in the solicitation. Notwithstanding this lack of clarity, the solicitation mandates use of a “Mission Module” approach in several critical threshold areas e.g. Paragraph L.3.1.1.1 requires that the Soldier Radio Waveform “shall be provided as a Mission Module (MM)”. We respectfully request that the Government provide (i) specific details regarding its requirements for a “Mission Module” approach to meeting all of its requirements for the STC HH, (ii) that requirements e.g.

environmental requirements, that must be met by the Mission Module itself and in combination with the STC HH be expressly identified, and that (iii) the requirements as provided by the Government expressly allow for a vendor agnostic approach to Mission Modules i.e. that Mission Modules be realizable in either software or hardware. More specifically, the government has asked for multiple modular capabilities. It would be advantageous to the Government if the offeror was able to provide, based on its overall product design, some/most/all of the modular capabilities via software mission modules as opposed to hardware mission modules. However, the solicitation includes conflicting information in this regard and where not conflicting the requirements as specified in the solicitation appear to assume/favor a hardware module approach ‐‐ an approach that is not vendor agnostic and is in fact an approach that will likely result in higher weight, lower reliability, and higher price.

The Government’s derived questions from the above paragraph are as follows:

1. What is the Government’s Mission Module concept?

2. The description of Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) as a “separate” mission module would appear to assume a Hardware mission module is required. Is this correct?

3. L.3.1.1.2.1 states that “Ideally the NGHH wideband channel would be designed in such a way that it could support multiple MANET waveforms via software downloads". Thus, Software downloadable “software mission modules” for the multiple MANET waveforms are preferred by the Government. Is this correct?

4. Specification 3.3.1.1 states “As an Objective each channel can support both wide and narrowband channels”. This implies Software mission modules, as opposed to single function Hardware mission modules. Can the Government please clarify?

5. Specification 3.7.6 states “The NGHH shall support all of the mandatory SRW implementation requirements and be provided in a Mission Module”. Thus, it is unclear whether a software mission module or hardware mission module is required, desired, preferred, or most valuable during proposal evaluation.

6. Specification 3.7.7 states “WNW will be provided in a Mission Module”. Thus, it is unclear whether software mission module or hardware mission module is required, desired, preferred, or most valuable to the Government.

A5: In response to the derived questions the following changes and clarifications are provided:

1. The Government’s concept of a Mission Module is an attachable hardware module that connects to the NGHH and provides additional software capabilities that cannot be integrated into the radio. The Government does not consider software integrated into the NGHH to be a mission module. Paragraph 4.1.3 is added to the Performance Specification to further describe the Mission Module.

2. The requirement for SRW to be provided only as a hardware Mission Module is removed.

3. Yes, software downloadable is preferable to the Government in order to support multiple MANET waveforms on the wideband channel.

4. The Government has not implied that this cannot be accomplished in a mission module.

Yes, as an Objective each channel should support both wide and narrowband channels through software. .

5. Performance Specification Paragraph 3.7.6 is revised under Amendment 01:

6. Performance Specification Paragraph 3.7.7 is revised under Amendment 01:

Q6: In Performance Spec 3.2.3 there is a reference to “a “packaged solution” (i.e. users have the option to include vendor‐provided end‐user devices EUD or utilize ...)”. Are we to assume that the

“vendor" referenced therein is the STC NGHH vendor? If so, does the Government contemplate adding EUDs to the scope of the contract at a later date?

A6: No. The Government does not plan to add EUDs to this solicitation or incorporate them into the contract at a later date.

Q7: How will the features, price, and availability of a vendor’s EUD be factored into the evaluation?

A7: It will not be factored into the evaluation and should not be included in the proposed pricing.

Q8: Also, Performance Spec 3.2.3 includes detailed requirements of the EUD, many of which imply applications running on the EUD that are integrated with the NGHH. Further, it is assumed in 3.2.3 that the Government may select its own EUD that will then run “vendor‐provided applications as required”. Since there is no specification of/limit on the range of EUD’s that might be used by the

Government; how is an offeror to develop and price EUD‐specific applications to satisfy the requirements of 3.2.3?

A8: The Government is not asking offerors to develop and price a EUD as part of this solicitation.

Q9: Based on our understanding of NSA requirements Performance Spec 3.3.3.2.d as defined is not allowed by NSA and should be changed or eliminated. Paragraph 3.3.2.d reads as follows:

d. If the NGHH is in Cipher Text (CT), and locks on a scanned channel that is in Plain Text (PT) the scan function allows the operator to Push‐to‐Talk (PTT) on a PT channel even if the home channel is CT.

A9: Per NSA guidance, as long as the CRYPTO By‐pass function is implemented correctly, per the Information Security Requirements Directive (ISRD), this is not an issue.

Q10: Performance Spec 3.4.1.5 refers to relaying and processing of “sensor” information, however no details are given with respect to which specific “sensors” are being referred to. Please specify what is meant by “sensors”? What protocols do they use? What frequencies? Are they vendor provided?

A10: Paragraph 3.4.1.5 is deleted from the Performance Specification under Amendment 01.

Q11: The Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capabilities in Performance Spec Table 1 appear to be written around a single ISR provider (L3 Comm). Is it SOCOM intention to direct L3 to work closely with and support bidders on the program to integrate their solution?

A11: The intent for the ISR receiver is not specific to any single vendor. However the capabilities identified are required for interoperability with currently fielded ISR assets. The Government recognizes that some of the waveforms are not Government owned. The Government does not intend to direct any vendor to work closely with any offeror.

Q12: Performance Spec 3.7.1.2 is unclear in the manner in which it is defined. Table 2 is described as representing the “optimal” features and specifications for the NGHH. However the table identifies certain requirements as threshold (T), others as objective (O) and yet others have no designation.

Consequently, it is unclear how the Government will evaluate a specific approach to evaluating a specific NGHH Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) offering.

A12: Performance Specification Paragraph 3.7.1.2 is revised under Amendment 01.

All values specified in Table 2 are Threshold (T) unless otherwise identified as Objective (O).

Q13: Performance Spec 3.7.2.2 includes the KYK 13 which is synonymous with DS‐ 102. Providing DS‐ 102 capability is inconsistent with NSA guidance. Please remove this requirement.

A13: The requirement is to retain a DS 102 interface for loading of legacy red key. Reference to KYK‐13 in the Performance Specification is removed under Amendment 01.

Q14: Performance Spec 3.8.1.4 identifies Table 3 STC Waveforms. This table identifies Integrated Waveform (IW) Phase II (MIL‐STD‐188‐182B) as a Threshold requirement. Request the IW Phase II requirement be changed to an Objective requirement.

A14: Since the Integrated Waveform (IW) Phase II is not yet fully implemented by the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Satellite Communications (SATCOM )Primary Control Centers, Table 3 – STC Waveforms, will be revised to reflect MIL‐STD‐188‐182A as the Threshold capability and MIL‐STD‐188‐182B as an Objective capability under Amendment 01.

Q15: Performance Spec 3.8.1.4 Table 3 identifies Data Control Waveform (Mil‐STD‐ 188‐184A) as a threshold waveform. Does this mean the NGHH shall be interoperable with the PDA‐184 data application?

A15: The NGHH must be able to interface with the PDA‐184 data application that is resident on a EUD without the use of special purpose cables.

Q16: Performance Spec 3.8.1.4 Table 3 identifies 4G/LTE as a Pre‐Planned Product Improvement (P3I).

P3I are Threshold objectives in that each bidder must propose a solution. However nowhere in the specification does it define any requirements for this capability. Further definition is necessary in order to formulate an offering and to provide a basis for fair evaluation of all offeror’s responses to this threshold requirement.

A16: The 4G/LTE is a P3I that is based upon commercial technologies not defined by the Government.

The Government will evaluate each P3I proposed as described in Sections L & M of the RFP.

Q17: Performance Spec 3.12.2.3 requires DS‐102 capability which is inconsistent with NSA guidance.

Please remove this requirement.

A17: Per NSA guidance the requirement to retain a DS 102 interface for loading of legacy red key is acceptable as long as DS 101 is implemented.

Q18: Performance Spec 3.12.2.6 requires Benign Fill as a threshold requirement. Per NSA policy the requirement for Benign Fill may be waivered for specific performances. Request this requirement be modified to include satisfaction via a waiver from NSA, or be made an Objective to ensure that the requirement is vendor agnostic.

A18: Reference to Benign Fill is removed from the Performance Specification

Q19: Performance Spec 3.12.4.7 requires DS‐102 capability which is inconsistent with NSA guidance. Please remove this requirement.

A19: Per NSA guidance the requirement to retain a DS 102 interface for loading of legacy red key is acceptable as long as DS 101 is implemented.

Q20: Performance Spec 3.14.1.3 is unclear what non‐rechargeable battery solution is being referred to? From a technical standpoint is not clear how that could be achieved from an off‐the‐shelf commercial battery. Recommend this requirement be limited to the rechargeable Li‐ion battery provided with the NGHH by the radio manufacturer.

A20: Paragraph 3.14.1.3 is referring to the rechargeable battery pack and the non‐rechargeable battery cassette. In addition, the NGHH shall be able to determine when the non‐rechargeable batteries that are to be used in the battery cassette, provided by the NGHH OEM, are depleted to 25% of remaining battery life. The Government will not limit the requirement to the rechargeable LI‐ion battery.

Q21: Performance Spec 3.14.1.6 implies that both channels are 5‐Watt channels which is inconsistent with the Performance Spec Additionally, it is unclear what non‐ rechargeable battery solution is being referred to. Request this requirement be limited to the rechargeable Li‐ion battery provided with the

NGHH by the radio manufacturer.

A21: Performance Specification Paragraph 3.14.1.6 is revised under Amendment 01.

Q22: Performance Spec 3.14.2.2 specifies 5 hours for charging time. Current Hand Held (HH) batteries require 8 hours for full charge. The NGHH will utilize a higher capacity battery than currently fielded, as a result the charging time will be longer. Please increase this requirement to 8 hours.

A22: The Government’s requirement is to recharge the NGHH battery within 5 hours.

Q23: Performance Spec 4.3.3.6 as written does not allow for PT Wireless Cloning, an industry recognized and implemented alternative to wired cloning. Request this requirement be changed to allow for either wired or wireless cloning so as to make the requirement vendor agnostic.

A23: Performance Specification Paragraph 4.3.3.6 is revised under Amendment 01.

Q24: Performance Spec 4.5.2.3 should be reworded to replace “as a minimum” with ‘as applicable and available for each waveform” since some of the Human Machine Interface (HMI) specified are only applicable to certain waveforms and not others.

A24: Performance Specification Paragraph 4.5.2.3 is revised under Amendment 01.

Q25: Performance Spec 4.5.2.3.k should be removed as this is not an HMI requirement but is instead an encryption requirement.

A25: Performance Specification Paragraph 4.5.2.3.k is removed under Amendment 01.

Q26: Performance Spec 3.7.2 Encryption. What is meant by a subscriber? Does this imply key exchange? SRW or otherwise?

A26: The term “subscriber” refers to a member and/or node in a MANET network with full operational transmit and receive capability and nothing else.

Q27: Performance Spec 3.7.4.4 ‐ Please provide further definition of Master Subscriber terminal

(MST).

A27: The reference to MST is removed and Performance Specification paragraph 3.7.4.4 is revised under Amendment 01.

Q28: Performance Spec 3.9.2.2 ‐ Request further clarity on a Miniature Underwater GPS Receiver (MUGR). Can a specification be provided? Which vendor(s) manufacture this device?

A28: The reference to MUGR is deleted from the paragraph under Amendment 01.

Q29: Performance Spec 3.10.2 Listening Silence ‐ Request clarification of the requirements for listening mode with respect to MANET waveforms. Does this refer to disabling the waveform?

A29: Yes. The MANET transmit capability shall be disabled when in Listening Silence mode.

Q30: Performance Spec 1.2.1 identifies Low Probability of Intercept/Detection/Exploitation (LPI/LPD/LPE) as an Objective waveform; however nowhere in the specification does it define this requirement. Request the Government provide further specification of this requirement.

A30: All references to LPI/D/E are removed from the Performance Specification as revised in Amendment 01.

Q31: Please clarify how satisfying Objective requirements will be evaluated. There is no clear weighting criteria defined currently.

A31: Objective capabilities will be evaluated in the same manner as Threshold capabilities as described in Sections L & M. The Objective capabilities in Table 3 of the Performance Specification are listed in descending order of importance. Table 3 is revised in Amendment 01.

Q32: Price Matrix Section B. The NGHH Urban ‐ states 2‐meters for 2 hours immersion requirement in the CLIN description; but Performance Spec states that 2 meters for 30 minutes is the NGHH requirement. Please clarify and confirm what the correct requirement is

A32: Performance Specification paragraph 4.4.10.1. is revised under Amendment 01.

Q33: Price Matrix Section B – Enhanced Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) Improvement Program (ESIP) is not identified under NGHH Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) in the description but it is defined as a CPC in the Performance Specification. Please clarify and confirm the intended requirement.

A33: The Government requires the SINCGARS ESIP waveform per the Military Standards cited in the

Performance Specification. The ESIP waveform is one of the baseline requirements that are integrated into the NGHH and priced in CLINs 0001 and 0002.

Q34: Performance Specification 5.3.11 ‐‐ Third order intercept point as specified is inconsistent with Performance Specification 5.3.6 Intermodulation Rejection. Recommend that the TIA 603D 2010 measurement standards and procedures, which are referenced within 5.3.6, remain and those in

5.3.11 be removed.

A34: The Government has determined the two requirements are not inconsistent.

Q35: Performance Specification 3.1.1 identifies as an “Input/Output (I/O) device..." as part of the device kit, however this I/O device is not referenced in the Attachment 3 Pricing tab for the CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 systems. Please clarify requirement to provide an I/O device with the device kit.

A35: The reference to an I/O device is removed from Performance Specification paragraph 3.1.1 under Amendment 01.

Q36: Performance Specification 3.11.1.1 requires that “the NGHH shall be capable of processing voice and/or data classified up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented information (TS/SCI).” However, Performance Specification 3.12 does not make Tactical Secure Voice Cryptographic Interoperability Specification (TSVCIS) a firm requirement. The NGHH must include TSVCIS to meet the requirements of the Performance Specification. In addition to specifying TSVCIS as a firm requirement, the solicitation Sections L & M should be amended to reflect the requirement for TSVCIS as a certified waveform available at the time of initial deliveries.

A36: The implementation of the TSVICS specification is a firm requirement however, the radio still must maintain the capability to interoperate cryptographically with legacy radio systems.

Q37: What frequency range should the Angle of Arrival (AOA) Antenna Array support?

A37: The tuning range of the NGHH.

Q38: Performance Specification (PS) Section 3.7.1.2 indicates that Table 2 and subsequent paragraphs represent "optimal features and specifications". However, some features are identified as (T), some as (0), and some are not tagged. Please clarify that Table 2 and subsequent paragraphs are nominal "optimal features and specifications" rather than minimum threshold requirements.

A38: All values specified in Table 2 are Threshold (T) unless otherwise identified as Objective (O).

Q39: Please clarify the level of classified data processing for each channel. PS Section 3.7.2 refers to Secret and below (SAB) for the MANET, 3.11.1.1 refers to TS/SCI, 3.11.1.2 states "to Top Secret (TS)",

3.11.1.3 states as an objective that both channels will support up to Top Secret, and 3.12.1.1 again refers to SAB.

1. What is the cryptographic requirement for the narrowband legacy channels?

2. What is the cryptographic requirement for the MANET channel?

3. Is the cryptographic requirement for the MANET channel different for military versus commercial waveforms?

4. Do the key management requirements apply to commercial MANET solutions?

A39: The response to the above questions Performance Specification paragraph 3.11.1.1 is revised to read Top Secret (TS) under Amendment 01. Responses to the inferred questions above follow:

1. TS and below (T).

2. SAB (T), TS and below (O).

3. No.

4. Yes.

Q40: Are the coversheet, table of contents, and other front matter excluded from the page counts for each volume?

A40: No, they are not excluded from the page count established in L.1.10 of the RFP.

Q41: An option to provide an extended 5‐year additional warranty is requested. There is no CLIN to price it.

A41: The extended 5‐year additional warranty will be removed from SOW paragraph 10.0 Warranty under Amendment 01.

Q42: The user population has already procured large quantities of ancillary items for operation with legacy equipment whose functionality may be provided by a mission module. Due to connector immersion challenges, it is likely that the legacy ancillaries would no longer be interoperable with 20 Meter (M) immersion mission modules. An example is viewing monocles procured for operation with legacy FMV receivers. These items would not be interoperable with 20 M immersion FMV mission modules but would require outfitting the community with either new devices with new connectors, or adapters. Given the adverse impact to the total cost of ownership, would the Government reconsider applying the 20 M immersion requirement to the mission modules?"

A42: The Governments requirement is for all Mission Modules to be meet the 20 meter immersion requirement and be able to interface with both the Urban and Maritime NGHH.

Q43: In the evaluation criteria, the Government gives no guidance on the relative weight of objective requirements. For example, per the specification, both the Bowman Very High Frequency (VHF) and Link 16 waveforms are identified as Objective although one waveform provides limited application for interoperability with specific coalition forces and the other waveform provides broad interoperability with air assets. In addition, the physical size of the NGHH of 40 cubic inches is an objective requirement; this represents a 20% reduction in size from the threshold requirement of 50 cubic inches. Unless guidance is provided, the offerors must assume performance to any Objective requirement is equivalent to performance to any other. Is that the government's intent?

A43: Objective capabilities are now listed in descending order of importance in Table 3 of the Performance Specification as revised in Amendment 01.

Q44: Section L.1.9 the second bullet indicates "Pages shall be single sided, one and one half spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides." Does "one and one half spaced" refer to spacing between lines or spacing between paragraphs? Please clarify.

A44: "One and one half spaced" refers to spacing between lines. Solicitation Paragraph L.1.9 will be clarified under Amendment 01.

Q45: Regarding Performance Specification 2.1.4, what is the appropriate procedure to follow to obtain the classified documents cited in the RFP/Specification?

A45: The Government believes offerors with appropriate facilities clearance and manufacturing background should have or be able to obtain the required reference documentation. If sponsorship is required with another Government organization for reference documentation transfer USSOCOM will support.

Q46: Per Performance Specification paragraph 4.1.2.1, the NGHH ground and maritime fixed mount configurations including rechargeable battery, power adapter/power supply, mounting trays, antennas and HP/LNA shall not exceed 700 cubic inches with an Objective (O) of 600 cubic inches.

Please confirm that antennas are not to be included in this requirement.

A46: Antennas are not to be included in this requirement. Performance Specification paragraph 4.1.2.1 will be revised under Amendment 01.