Answers to questions_ROUND 3.doc
DOC document 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Data link services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC101310R2002
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 7.doc | DOC document | |
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 6.doc | DOC document | |
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 5.doc | DOC document | |
| CLINs for Pricing_RFP_17 Feb 10_Amend 4.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 4.doc | DOC document | |
| Answers to ques recd 12 Feb 10_Amend 4.doc | DOC document | |
| Delivery Order Usage.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Answers to ques recd 22 Jan 10_Amend 3.doc | DOC document | |
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 3.doc | DOC document | |
| HC101310R2002_CONFORMED.doc | DOC document | |
| HC101310R2002_AMEND 2.doc | DOC document | |
| Aircraft Projections | — | |
| CLINs for Pricing_RFP_04 Feb 10_V2.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Answers to ques recd 22 Jan 10_Amend 2.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP_13 Jan 10_Amend 1.doc | DOC document | |
| CLINs for Pricing_RFP_04 Dec 09.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| RFP_08 JAN 10.doc | DOC document |
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Page
| Paragraph |
| Question/Comment/Request for Clarification |
| Government Response |
| 3 |
| A-2 |
| Are value added services considered in the ceiling of $20,000,000? |
| Yes |
| 3 |
| A-2 |
| Can the USAF provide reasoning for capping at $20,000,000 since this amount has not changed since the initial RFP in 2000 and since then additional aircraft and services have been added? |
| Based on historical data and usage, the ceiling will remain at $20M. |
| N/A |
| Usage Report |
| Given the usage report - can the customer provide usage for the C-32 which appears to have been overlooked? |
| C-32 reference was accidentally left off of DO 19 on the usage spreadsheet. Number of aircraft has been added, but usage data remains the same. |
| N/A |
| Usage Report |
| Given the usage report, there are several models that currently show no VHF activity for 2009 (C-17, C-5, and C-12C. Can the USAF provide any input if there are plans to equip these aircraft with VHF and if so when? |
| The C-17 and C-5 have VHF equipage planned as future upgrades. However, we do not have specific timeline information. |
| N/A |
| Usage Report |
| Given the usage report for total kilobit activity, can the USAF provide a break-down in kilobit usage for the following regions: 1 - Americas including Hawaii, Central America, and the Caribbean. 2 - Brazil. 3 - Asia. 4 - Japan (AVICOM). 5 - Europe. 6 - Russia. It is likely the current DSP has this history. |
| No. However the following is a breakout of all AMC sorties for calendar year 2009 by Area of Responsibility (AOR): |
· NORTHCOM – 83,484
· SOUTHCOM – 2,633
· EUCOM – 30,777
· CENTCOM – 88,992
· AFRICOM – 1,471
· PACOM – 16,060
· Miscellaneous - 638
| 8 |
| Item 3 |
| Answers to questions received 12 Feb - the USAF responded …"ACARS needs to include pricing consideration for all VHF networks"… Question, when POA and VDL2 are available simultaneously but POA is the preferred network of the DSP, is this acceptable or must the VHF have the priority of VDL2 and when VDL2 is not available then POA should be used regardless of DSP preferred network? |
| Pricing should include all providers within a media since aircraft may lock onto a signal from a third party provider vs. the primary DSP vendor depending upon aircraft equipage, avionics configuration, and relative strengths of received ground station signals. |
| 65 |
| 5. Part 3c |
| Section 508 – Offeror Certification. Can exceptions be made in this section? i.e. support for assistive technology used by people who are visually impaired shall be provided. |
| The following link is provided for your information. http://www.section508.gov |
| N/A |
| None |
| Based on answers to these questions and to provide a comprehensive proposal would the government provide a 30 day extension to respond to the RFP? |
| No |
| The ATS (Kbits) and Other (Kbits) rows in each of the Delivery Order (DO) worksheets are blank. However, it is our understanding that some government aircraft have participated in ATS Services including FANS. If our understanding is correct, is this traffic reflected in the worksheets in another row? If not, will the government provide this data so we can have a more accurate usage profile? |
| All usage for calendar year 2009 is provided in the spreadsheet as requested in a previous question. If there is not data, there was no activity. We do have aircraft that participated in ATS and FANS. The Kilobit levels reflect data that was processed and paid for by the Air Force. The Air Force pays for ATS and FANS communications usage from air to ground, but does not pay for ground to ground traffic. Therefore, data does not include the ground to ground data usage. |
Since the multi-tiered pricing requires the third tier be based on MDS per Delivery Order, will the government provide updated worksheets that break down each Delivery Order by MDS?
The data provided on the Usage Spreadsheet shows the number of aircraft per MDS.
The government’s response to the inquiry referencing the IRD and IDD documents included the following statement: “The Air Force is mandating changes to our current interfaces to comply with requirements of the RFP. Therefore, all vendor solutions will require new interface transition costs.” Does this mean the IRD and IDD documents do not align with the current interface requirements? Which document(s) define the interface requirements to be met by the offeror, and are there any requirements relating to connectivity at locations other than Scott AFB which are to be quoted under this RFP?
The documents show the current interface between the AMC command and control system and DSP network. The current equipment, routing, and/or protocols will need to be changed to comply with current Air Force
Information Assurance directives.
There are no documents that define the specific interface requirement to be met by the offeror other than the directives quoted in the RFP. This gives the offeror latitude in the design of their interface. AMC prefers an
Internet VPN solution vs. a dedicated circuit.
Yes, there are other delivery order customers under the current contract at other locations in the United States and overseas that will require separate interfaces.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .