AMD03_Q A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 65 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC1013-14-R-0004
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Q A - Questions 1-51 were answered on the previous amendment
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Question # | RFP Section & Title | Page # | Issue/Concern | Comment/Suggestion | Government's Response |
| 52 | Appendix I - Terminal Specifications | App I | Appendix I CBSP Terminal Specifications, does not specify any modems for the NSLC-A. Nor has the commercial LA specifications (including modems) been provided for the other terminals with commercial KA bandwidth requirements (AN/USC-69(v),. UAV 1, UAV 2). | Would it be acceptable for the bidder to propose using its own specified modem? Or alternatively, does the government intend to specify a modem in this RFP or at some point during the performance of this contract? | Offerors shall not specify their own modem. For the purposes of this RFP the SLM-5650A modem shall be used when no other modem is specified. |
| 53 | Appendix I - Terminal Specifications | App I | Appendix I CBSP Terminal Specifications, does not list commercial Ka specifications (including the modems) for the UAV-1 and UAV-2 terminals in commercial Ka. | Given that the Government does not appear to have a current hardware solution that operates within commercial Ka, would the Government consider it acceptable for the offeror to propose using their own specified modem for the commercial Ka bandwidth requirements? | Offerors shall not specify their own modem. For the purposes of this RFP the SLM-5650A modem shall be used when no other modem is specified. |
| 54 | Appendix I - Terminal Specifications | App I | Please provide the terminal manufacturer and modem type for the UAV-1 Ku-band terminal. Will the airborne and hub modems be GFE? | Appendix I UAV-1 specs in error, should be Ka-band vice Ku Band. The Government has corrected Appendix I to provide estimated UAV-1 Ka-band specs. All end user equipment will be GFE. | |
| 55 | Appendix I - Terminal Specifications | App I | In the Appendix I (RF Terminal Specs) the terminal look angle restriction for the UAV2 X-band and UAV2 Ka-band is stated as -10deg. | Please confirm that -10 should is accurate. | The Government confirms negative 10 degrees is accurate. |
| 56 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | Commercial Ka-Band tab, includes UAV1 terminals that are for Ku-Band only. | Clarify the terminals to be used on the Commercial Ka-Band requirement. UAV1 is for Ku-band only. | Appendix I UAV-1 specs in error, should be Ka-band vice Ku Band. The Government has corrected Appendix I to provide estimated UAV-1 Ka-band specs. |
| 57 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | Military Ka-Band tab, includes UAV1 terminals that are for Ku-Band only. | Clarify the terminals to be used on the Military Ka-Band requirement. UAV1 is for Ku-band only. | Appendix I UAV-1 specs in error, should be Ka-band vice Ku Band. The Government has corrected Appendix I to provide estimated UAV-1 Ka-band specs. |
| 58 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | For NAVO Seatel the outbound carrier is a 2048 Kbps and the inbound 512 Kbps. Previous BW estimate indicated the opposite. | Clarify if the outbound carrier (Transmitted by the CT) is a 2048 kbps and the inbound carrier (Transmitted by the ship) a 512 kbps. Inbound/Outbound is from the Commercial Teleport (CT) perspective. | All data rates listed in Appendix II are relative to the CT. Outbound is to the end user, inbound is from the end user. |
| 59 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | Within Appendix II, Bandwidth Estimates, offerors are required to support AN/USC-69(V)1, UAV-1, and UAV-2 on Commercial KA Bandwidth. The RFP defines the transmit capability for Ka-Commercial as 27.5-30 GHz. In Attachment 6, AN/USC-69(V)1, UAV-1, and UAV-2 do not include information on transmit frequencies in this range. | Can the Navy provide theoretical performance information as it did with the NSLC-A Ka terminal included in Appendix II? | The Government has corrected Appendix II and USC-69(V)2 Ka-Band requirements have been removed. UAV-1 will be able to utilize both military and commercial Ka-bands as defined by Table 1 of the PWS (located in PWS Section 6.2.3). UAV-2 can only utilize the military Ka-band. All performance information is included in the RFP. |
| 60 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | In Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth estimates, AN/USC-69(V)1SSV - VMS links list a single OUTBOUND link as using "5.096" Mbps, and the INBOUND links of "5x1.024" Mbps. The table makes notation that "*Inbound/Outbound is from the user perspective." | Are the Outbound/Inbound notations reversed, in that there should be 5 Outgoing Links (1.024 Mbps each) and one Inbound Link (5.096 Mbps) from the perspective of the user? | All data rates listed in Appendix II are relative to the CT. Outbound is to the end user, inbound is from the end user. |
| 61 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | A UAV-1 type terminal has been listed on the Military Ka-band sheet, under Regions A and H. | Please clarify if it is a typographical error and should actually be UAV-2 since UAV-1 has been defined as Ku-band capable and UAV-2 Military Ka-band capable. | Appendix I UAV-1 specs in error, should be Ka-band vice Ku Band. The Government has corrected Appendix I to provide estimated UAV-1 Ka-band specs. |
| 62 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | Please clarify the definition (e.g., full-duplex) and usage of the TRANSIT bandwidth as shown in the UAV-2(TRANSIT) requirements. | "Full duplex" is defined as the ability to transmit and receive data simultaneously. "Transit" refers to the resources used as the user terminal travels to and from an op area. | |
| 63 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II | In Appendix II, the G/T listed for UAV2 (X-band and Ka-band) is identified by dBi/K unlike the other terminals (dB/K). Is this in error? If this is not an error: in order to derive an accurate link budget, information such as receive gain (dbi), antenna noise, and antenna losses is required. | Please supply the information needed to derive an accurate link budget if the notation of dBi/K is not in error. | Appendix I is in error, should be dB/K vice dBi/K for the UAV-2 terminals. The Government has corrected Appendix I. |
| 64 | Appendix II - Bandwidth Estimates | App II | Within the Appendix II, Bandwidth Estimates, offerors are required to support UAV-1 on Military Ka Bandwidth. The RFP defines the transmit capability for Ka - Military as 30 - 31 GHz. In Attachment 6, UAV-1 does not include information on transmit frequencies in this range. | Request the Navy provide theoretical performance information for all the specs in the same manner as the information provided for the NSLC-A Ka terminal also included in Appendix I. | Per Amendment 0002, Attachment 6 was removed and offerors should refer to Appendix I. |
| Appendix I - Terminal Specifications | App I | ||||
| Attachment 6 - Terminal Specifications | Att 6 | ||||
| 65 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | Within the Appendix II, Bandwidth Estimates, offerors are required to support UAV-1 and UAV-2 on Commercial Ka Bandwidth. The RFP defines the transmit capability for Ka – Commercial as 27.5 – 30 GHz. In Appendix I, UAV-1 and UAV-2 do not include information on transmit frequencies in this range. | Request the Navy provide theoretical performance information for all the specs in the same manner as the information provided for the NSLC-A Ka terminal also included in Appendix I. | The Government has corrected Appendix II to remove USC-69(V)2 Ka-Band requirements. UAV-1 will be able to utilize both military and commercial Ka-bands as defined by Table 1 of the PWS (located in PWS Section 6.2.3). UAV-2 can only utilize the military Ka-band. All performance information is included in the RFP. |
| 66 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | For Military and commercial Ka-Band the Government lists an AN/USC-69(V)1 SSV terminal but the AN/USC-69(V)1 in Appendix I only has Ku-Band frequencies. | Is there a military and commercial Ka-Band version of the AN/USC-69(V1) ? | There is no military or commercial Ka-band version. The USC-69(V)1 can only operate in Ku-band. |
| 67 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | For Military Ka-Band the Government lists a NSLC-A terminal but the NSLC-A in Appendix I does not have a modem listed. | Will the Government provide a modem spec for this terminal so the contractor can do link budgets? | For the purposes of this RFP the SLM-5650A modem shall be used when no other modem is specified. |
| 68 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | For Ku-Band the Government lists a NSLC-A terminal but the NSLC-A in Appendix I does not have a modem listed. | Will the Government provide a modem spec for this terminal so the contractor can do link budgets? | For the purposes of this RFP the SLM-5650A modem shall be used when no other modem is specified. |
| 69 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | For commercial Ka-Band the Government lists a UAV-2 terminal but Appendix I lists the frequencies for this terminal in the military Ka-Band of 30-31 GHz Uplink. | Does this terminal also operate in the commercial Ka-Band range? What are the terminal specs for commercial band? | The Government has corrected Appendix II. UAV-2 can only utilize the military Ka-band. |
| 70 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | For commercial Ka-Band and X-band, the Government lists a UAV-2 terminal from L3 that is compatible with the MD-1366 modem. | Can industry assume that the UAV-2 modem is materially equivalent to the MD-1366 modem? | For the purposes of the RFP, assume that the UAV-2 modem is materially equivalent to the MD-1366 modem. |
| 71 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | Is the MD-1366 compatible modem airborne qualified? Is this terminal modem compatible with MD-1366 turbo coding? | For the purposes of this RFP, assume that the UAV-2 modem is airborne qualified and that it is compatible with MD-1366 turbo coding. | |
| 72 | Appendix I and Appendix II | App I & II | Appendix I lists a UAV-1 terminal for Ku-Band but we can find no bandwidth requirement for this terminal in Appendix II. | Are there bandwidth requirements for this terminal? | Appendix I UAV-1 specs in error, should be Ka-band vice Ku-band. The Government has corrected Appendix I to provide estimated UAV-1 Ka-band specs. Offers should provide UAV Ka-band bandwidth estimates in accordance with the corrected Appendix II. |
| 73 | Attachment 1 and Appendix II | Att 1 & App II | Should the quantities in Bandwidth Estimate Table match the quantities in the Pricing Model? | The quantities in Attachment 1 CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule are for evaluation purposes only and do not reflect the exact quantities listed in Appendix II Bandwidth Estimates. | |
| 74 | The stated objective of the CSSC is to acquire worldwide commercial telecommunications services, to include satellite capacity in commercial Ka-band for mobile and fixed satellite terminals on maritime, airborne, and ground platforms. One commercial Ka-band solution that is currently available offers a pre-packaged Subscription Service that is tailored for the Government market and provides a guaranteed committed information rate (CIR) to a single satellite terminal utilizing a per Mbps service pricing model. | For commercial Ka-band, can bidders propose service on a Mbps basis using a Subscription Service? | The Government will not change the CLIN Structure to allow for subscription service-based pricing. | ||
| 75 | Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | Att 1 | Purchasing commercial goods and services helps the Government to increase its buying power. To offer customers their most attractive pricing, commercial sources often sell goods and services in "minimum buy" quantities. | For the CSSC competition, how should "minimum buys" be addressed in the pricing matrix? | This requirement it being procured as an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract. The minimum Guarantee is $150,000.00. No other changes to the pricing matrix are anticipated at this time. |
| 76 | Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | Instructions Summary | Item 9 says the Summary Sheet will automatically populate and calculate the optional 6-month period based on the MRC amounts that are proposed for each region. | Question 76a: Please explain how the Summary correlates to the life cycle cost since it includes the non-bandwidth MRC items, which are not defined as part of the life cycle cost. | Answer 76a: The Government has revised Attachment 1 to include additional information in the Instructions tab to clarify how the life cycle cost is calculated. Section M, M002 e(2) has also been revised to reflect how the evaluated and life cycle costs are calculated. |
| Question 76b: Please confirm that Non-Bandwidth is correct in adding MRC and NRC amounts which are then pulled to the Summary, as item 9 in the Instructions only references MRC amounts. | Answer 76b: The Government has revised Attachment 1 to include additional information in the Instructions tab to clarify how the life cycle cost is calculated. Section M, M002 e(2) has also been revised to reflect how the evaluated and life cycle costs are calculated. | ||||
| 77 | Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | All Tabs | The bandwidth CLINs per region are in increments of < 1 MHz, 1-6 MHz, 6-12 MHz, 12-36 MHz and 36-72 MHz. However, on the “Non-bandwidth” Tab, the CT CLINs are not broken out in increments related to an amount of bandwidth being uplinked. The number of CT’s being proposed is also seemingly tied to one of four NCTAMS. | Question 77a: How is an offeror supposed to price the various bandwidth amounts being uplinked? A flat price ranging from 1-72MHz is not the industry norm. | Answer 77a: It is the offeror's challenge to price teleport costs using the existing CLINs. |
| Question 77b: Are we to assume the number of CT’s tied to a NCTAM is the offeror’s challenge to solve, presumably the fewer number of CT’s the better? | Answer 77b: Yes, the number of CTs tied to a particular NDP is the offeror's challenge to solve. | ||||
| Question 77c: Would the Government consider constructing the CT CLINs to match the incremental bandwidth CLINs, since this aligns with the industry norm? | Answer 77c: The Government will not be changing the current CLIN structure for Attachment 1. | ||||
| 78 | Attachment 1 - Non-Bandwidth Tab | For the Non-Bandwidth CLIN’s with “Non-Recurring Cost (NRC)” in their description, the template allows for both MRC and NRC amounts to be entered. | Please confirm if this is correct or if only the NRC input field should be used. Specific CLINS include CLINs x391AB; x392AA, -AC, -AE, -AG, -AJ, -AL, -AN, -AQ; x393AA, -AC; x394AB | Only an NRC amount should be included. The Government has updated Attachment 1 to indicate the MRC column is not separately priced (NSP). | |
| 79 | Attachment 1 - Non-Bandwidth Tab | For the Non-Bandwidth CLIN’s with “Monthly Recurring Cost (MRC)” in their description, the template allows for both MRC and NRC amounts to be entered. | Please confirm if this is correct or if only the MRC input field should be used. Specific CLINS include CLINs x391AA; x392AB, -AD, -AF, -AH, -AK, -AM, -AP, -AR; x393AB; x394AA | Only an MRC amount should be included. The Government has updated Attachment 1 to indicate the NRC column is NSP. | |
| 80 | Attachment 1 - Non-Bandwidth Tab | Non-Bandwidth CLIN x395 for GFE Installation allows for both MRC and NRC input with a quantity of 12. | Please confirm if this should be NRC input only with quantity of 1 with the CLIN exercised for each specific installation. | The Government has updated Attachment 1 to indicate the NRC quantity is 1 and to indicate the MRC column is NSP. | |
| 81 | Attachment 1 - Non-Bandwidth Tab | Non-Bandwidth CLIN x396 for HNA/FC allows for both MRC and NRC input with quantity of 12. | Please confirm this is correct. | Amendment 0002 revised the HNA CLIN to indicate pricing was not due at the time of proposals submission. Please see answer 26 from the Q&A document posted with Amendment 0002. | |
| 82 | Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | Will the Government consider adding CLINs for teleport non-recurring and recurring charges structured by regions? Doing so should result in a lesser overall lifecycle costs to the Government since the Government will not pay for services that are blended into bandwidth prices, but not actually required. Additionally, the Government will have the ability to compare bandwidth to bandwidth costs in each region and the teleport costs for all teleports. | The Government will not be changing the current CLIN structure for Attachment 1. | ||
| 83 | Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | Question 83a: Would the government consider a subscription service-based pricing approach, focused on total Mbps vs MHz for the Aero network? | Answer 83a: The Government will not consider subscription service-based pricing approach for this requirement. | ||
| Question 83b: If so, would the government provide an updated pricing section addressing this approach? | Answer 83b: The Government will not change Attachment 1 to allow for subscription service-based pricing. | ||||
| 84 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information | A-N | Attachment 4 – Past Performance Information requests information in a “paragraph” form. | Question 84a: Is it permissible to convert the requested information into a Table form? | Answer 84a: The Government requests that offerors follow the directions on Attachment 4 to allow the evaluation team easier access to all of the information required. |
| Question 84b: If it is permissible to convert the requested information into a Table form, can the verbiage that is currently in Paragraphs A through N be shortened or paraphrased to reduce the amount of space consumed? | Answer 84b: Offerors are to use the format stated in the attachment. | ||||
| 85 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information | F | In this paragraph, it states: “… information on all three individuals.”. However, there are only two individuals, with corresponding blanks/information to fill out, listed. These are: “Program Manager” and the “Contracting Officer”. | Did the Government intend to have the “Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR)” as the third individual? | The Government has updated Attachment 4 to read "these" instead of "three" |
| 86 | Attachment 9 - Cross Reference Matrix | 1st Page | Paragraph (b)(2) states in part: “The Offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at Attachment 9 information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, and CLIN numbers found therein. However, there are no CLIN references in the Matrix that is Page 2. | Was “CLIN numbers” inadvertently included? | The Government has updated Section L 2.2.7 to remove the reference to CLIN numbers. |
| 87 | Section L 2.2.7 - Cross-Referencing Attachment 9 - Cross Reference Matrix | 46 of 52 | This paragraph states that “The offeror shall fill out the Cross Reference Matrix provided as Attachment 9 …”. | Is the offeror to fill out Attachment 9 only as it exists now, or is the offeror required to expand Attachment 9 and address all items in the PWS? | The offeror must complete Attachment 9 (as updated with Amendment 0003), but may expand it as long as it still contains the information that it currently has. |
| 88 | Attachment 9 - Cross Reference Matrix | Cross Reference Matrix includes section 6.2.5.1 as Reliability and Bandwidth Assurance, however this section in the PWS is labeled Satellite Availability. | Please confirm that the Cross Reference Matrix section 6.2.5.1 should be Satellite Availability. | The Government has updated Attachment 9 to correct the title of 6.2.5.1 to reflect "Satellite Availability" | |
| 89 | Section L 4.2.2.1 - Subfactor 1 - Space Segment Requirements | 101 of 115 | L.4.2.2.1 includes Element 1 – Satellite Capacity, which states: “The offeror will provide a plan on how they will demonstrate the ability to provide satellite resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy bandwidth capacity identified in the PWS Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates.” Additionally, RFP L.4.2.2.1 states: “Each page shall be counted except the following: cover page, table of contents, cross reference matrix, glossaries, link budgets, information assurance (IA) compliance matrix, and organizational conflict of interest (OCCI) mitigation plans.” In order to provide satellite resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy bandwidth capacity identified in the PWS Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates, it is critical the offerors demonstrate that their proposed solutions have coverage in the required areas. As such, EIRP and D/T diagrams for all proposed bands and regions must be provided. However, given the size of the coverage requirements, this would require 50 or more diagrams. | Question 89a: Please confirm that the government requires offerors to provide EIRP and G/T diagrams for all proposed bands and regions. | Answer 89a: The offeror must propose a solution that meets the requirements of the RFP. |
| Question 89b: Please confirm that the EIRP and G/T diagrams for all proposed bands and regions do not count toward the page limit. | Answer 89b: The EIRP and G/T diagrams are included in the page counts. | ||||
| 90 | SF1449 - Block 28 | Page 1 | Block 28 on the Standard Form 1449 indicates the contractor is to sign the document and return “0” (zero) copies to be returned to the issuing office. | Is the SF 1449 in error or is the “0” in Block 28 meant to indicate that only the “Original” signed SF 1449 is to be returned and no additional “Copies”? | The Government has updated the SF 1449 to show that only the original signed SF 1449 is required. |
| Section L 2.2 - Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | 44 of 52 | Paragraph 2.2, as well as Table 2.1 indicate that one “Paper Copy” and 1 “CD” are to be submitted. | |||
| Section L 7.1 - Contract/Representations and Certifications | 50 of 52 | Paragraph “7.1 Contract/Representations and Certifications” states that the Offeror should include a signed copy of SF 1449 (as well as other documents) with its submission. | |||
| 91 | Section L 2.0(d) - General Instructions | 44 of 52 | This paragraph states that the offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date. A review of the Standard Form 1449 reveals that there is not a “block” where an acceptance period would be inputted as there is on a Standard Form 33 (Block 12). | Should the offeror use Section A to state its validity period, or should this statement appear elsewhere in Volume V? If the SF 1449 is to be used, please identify the block in which the offer should make its clear statement regarding its proposal validity period. | The statement of validity should appear in Volume V of the proposal. The Government has revised Section L to reflect this change. |
| 92 | Section L 2.2 - Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | 44 of 52 | The third sentence of this paragraph states: “The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-binders, as necessary.” The table contains no mention of “attachments”, although some of the “volumes” will have “attachments”. | Question 92a: Did the Government intend to mean that both the Volumes themselves and any Attachments to those individual Volumes both must be in three-ring, loose-leaf binders? | Answer 92a: No. The Government has revised Section L to read "The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary." |
| Question 92b: Did the Government mean to use the word “volumes” instead of the word “attachments” in the third sentence? | Answer 92b: Yes. The Government has revised Section L to read "The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary." | ||||
| 93 | Section L 2.2.1 - Page Limitations and 4.2.2 - Volume Organization | 45 & 47 of 52 | Please confirm that the List of Tables and Figures discussed in paragraph 4.2.2 is excluded from the limit of 100 pages for the Technical/Management volume. | The Government has revised section L paragraph 2.2.1 to clarify the "list of tables and figures" is excluded from the page count. | |
| 94 | Section L 2.2.1 - Page Limitations and 5.1 - Volume III - Past Performance, General | 45 & 48 of 52 | In the response to question 49a issued with Amendment A0002, the Government states that all information in Volume III will count towards the page limit, including the consent letters. This volume has a limit of 25 pages, and the questions contained on the Past Performance Information Sheet take up a full two pages. Depending upon the size of offerors’ teams and the corresponding number of consent letters that must be provided, it’s very possible that they will be left with only 1-2 pages to provide the information required for each referenced contract. | Question 94a: If consent letters are to count toward the volume’s page count limit, is the Government willing to revert back to the limit of 40 pages for this volume, as contained in the draft RFP? | Answer 94a: The Government has revised section L to exclude consent letters from the overall page limit for Volume III. However, the Government has restricted the page count for each consent letter to two pages. Section L paragraph 5.1 has been revised to add "Consent letters are limited to two pages each and will not be counted towards the overall page count for Volume III. " |
| Question 94b: If not, is the Government willing to reconsider its response to question 49a, or allow respondents to omit the questions when they submit Past Performance Information sheets for each referenced contract? | Answer 94b: The Government has revised Section L to exclude the consent letters from the overall page count for Volume III. The Government will not change the requirement to submit the past performance information sheets without the questions. | ||||
| 95 | Section L 2.3 - Electronic Offers | 46 of 52 | Please confirm that the electronic copy of the signed SF 1449 and proposal cover letter can be submitted as PDF files. | The Government confirms the signed SF 1449 and proposal cover letter may be submitted as a PDF. | |
| 96 | Section L 7.1 - Contract/Representations and Certifications | 50 of 52 | This paragraph states: “The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, and Sections A through K.” By using the word “through” it implies that all Sections from A to K are to be included, including “Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices”. The subparagraphs to Paragraph 7.1 indicate that only Sections A, I, J, and K are to be included. It is also noted that “Section D – Packing and Marking” and “Section F – Deliveries or Performance” are not contained in the RFP. | Did the Government intend to only have Sections A, I, J and K included in Volume V? | No, as stated in Section L paragraph 7.1, "The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, and Sections A through J. " The subparagraphs were included to clarify specific sections as needed. |
| 97 | Section L 7.1.2 | 50 of 52 | Paragraph 7.1.2 is repeated twice. | Did the Government inadvertently label two paragraphs with the same number or was one of the paragraphs, possibly the one titled “Section I – Contract Clauses”, to be deleted? | The Government has revised Section L to correct duplicate paragraph numbers. |
| 98 | Section L / Section M | Section C of the RFP, the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Paragraphs 6 through 14, lays out the detailed requirements of the CSSC program. However, Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notice to Bidders, mirrored by Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, appears to address only seven particular areas/requirements. That is, Section L requires only those seven areas/requirements to be addressed and Section M states that only those seven areas/requirements will be evaluated. | Question 98a: Are the remaining areas/requirements of Section C, outside of those specifically called out in Sections L and M of the RFP to be addressed? | Answer 98a: Section M, b. Evaluation states, "The proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its company’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors." In addition, Section M, M003 states, "Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. " Please base your proposal on this information. | |
| Question 98b: If those areas outside of the seven areas/requirements specifically called out in Sections L and M are to be addressed, under which paragraphs of Section L should they be addressed? | Answer 98b: Section L paragraph 4.2.1 states, "In the Technical/Management Volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule." | ||||
| 99 | Section L 4.2.1 - Technical/Management / 4.2.2.1 | 47 of 52 | The titles for Paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 1) are “Technical/Management”. However, the contents of these paragraphs are technical in nature and have little to do with “management” in the sense of “program management”. | Did the Government intend to include the term “Management” in the titles of Paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 1)? | The Government has revised Section M to include "Management" in paragraph M002 a. (1). |
| Section M, M002 a. (1) | 108 of 115 | In Paragraph M002 a. (1), the word “Management” was deleted from “Technical/Management” as it appeared in the DRAFT RFP and now appears as “Technical” in the Final RFP. | |||
| 100 | Section M, M002(a)(2) | 109 of 115 | The Government states that to be considered awardable, the proposal must be rated acceptable for factor 3, IA. | If the offeror provides a solution that uses a satellite that meets MAC III controls for command encryption but not MAC II could the Government award to this offeror over another offeror whose satellites meet all the command encryption controls for MAC II? | Factor 3, IA, will be evaluated on an acceptable/non-acceptable basis. Section M describes the acceptability criteria for this proposal. Once the proposal is considered acceptable, no other trade-off will be made for Factor 3. Nor will the IA factor be compared with other proposals. |
| 101 | Section M, e(2) | 113 of 115 | Price Factor e(2) states that the Government will calculate the total life cycle cost by multiplying the proposed prices by the Government-provided estimated bandwidth quantities. | How will the non-bandwidth items, both MRC and NRC, be evaluated? Will they be included as part of the life cycle cost? | Yes, the non-bandwidth items are included in the life-cycle cost and the total evaluated cost. The Government has updated Section M, M002 e(2) to clarify how the evaluated and life cycle cost are calculated. |
| 102 | Clause 252.237-7 24(b) | 96 of 115 | This paragraph states the Offeror shall provide with its offer (proposal) a written plan for continuation of essential contractor services. It goes on to state these are “services listed in attachment --, Mission Essential Contractor Services, dated ------ “. | Question 102a: Does the Government require that this “plan” be submitted at the time of proposal submission? | Answer 102a, 102b, 102c: Amendment 0003 removes this clause, therefore, no plan is required. |
| Question 102b: If this “plan” is required with the proposal submission where in the submission should it be placed? | |||||
| Question c: If the “plan” is required for proposal submission, when does the Government intend to forward the stated “attachment”? | |||||
| 103 | PWS Figure 2 & Appendix II | 4 of 52 & App II | Figure 2 shows three notational NDP sites with CFE and GFE equipment, while Appendix III-NDPs, Section 2.0 list addresses for four NDP sites. | Please clarify if the Navy expects the contractor to provide connectivity to three or four NDP sites at contract award. | The Government expects the contractor to provide connectivity to NCTAMS LANT and NCTAMS PAC at contract award. Other NDPs listed in Appendix III may be added as operational needs dictate during the life of the contract. |
| 104 | PWS Section 6.1.1.9 | Section 6.1.1.9 of the PWS states: “The contractor shall provide a solution design document . . .” The draft PWS included a delivery time for the solution design document, whereas the final PWS does not provide a delivery time. | Question 104a: Please specify when the solution design document should be delivered and to whom. | Answer 104a: Please see Section M, M002 b. (3) | |
| Question 104b: If part of the proposal, should the document be formatted as a separate document of integrated into the Technical Volume? | Answer 104b: The design solution shall be a high level overview of the network topology and integrated into the technical volume. | ||||
| Question 104c: If required as part of the Technical Volume, does the document count as part of the page count? | Answer 104c: Yes, the design solution document is included in the page count for the Technical Volume. | ||||
| 105 | PWS Section 6.1.1.9 | Figure 3 shows Contractor Furnished Equipment at the NDP. | How much space will be provided and what type of power, number of outlets, and type of outlet? What interface type/speed is required to connect to the NDP GFE? | The offeror shall specify the space, power and environmental requirements of their proposed solution. | |
| 106 | PWS Sections 6.2.1.1 & 6.2.1.2 | 7 of 52 | These sections provide the timeframe within which the contractor must respond with a completed Link Budget Analysis. The requirement for Baseline is within 72 hours after receipt of the request, and the requirement for Non-Baseline is within 48 hours after receipt of the CSSR. | Are the 72 hour and 48 hour deadlines reversed? | The timeframes are as specified in the PWS. These are NOT reversed. |
| 107 | PWS Section 6.2.2 | 7 of 52 | Section 6.2.2 states: “Link budgets shall be submitted with the technical proposal for all modem data rates requested in Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates.” | Will the government provide the specifications for the Viasat antenna and modem that are being used for the Aero services? | The Government will not provide any additional specifications. The NSLC-A specifications provided in Appendix I are for future terminals. For the purposes of this RFP the SLM-5650A modem shall be used when no other modem is specified. |
| 108 | PWS Section 6.2.2 - Required Space Segment Quality | PWS Section 6.2.2 - This section states that technical parameters to be used for link budgets are contained in Appendices I and II, and link budgets shall be submitted with the technical proposal for all modem data rates requested in Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates. | Question 108a: Are link budgets only required for terminals and regions listed in Appendix II (Bandwidth Estimates) and only in the case when data rates are provided? | Answer 108a: Yes, link budgets are only required for terminals listed in Appendix II where frequency band and data rates are provided. | |
| PWS Section 6.2.8 - Satellite Coverage | PWS Section 6.2.8 - This section states the following requirements: “Meeting the coverage area is defined as closing the satellite link and meeting the elevation angle requirement for all terminals operating within the defined coverage area. When terminal locations are not specified, meeting the coverage area can be demonstrated by closing the satellite link and meeting the elevation angle requirement for terminals defined in Appendix I – User Terminal Segment Characteristics, at a point within the coverage area with the weakest satellite uplink G/T.” | Question 108b: If no data rates are listed for terminals in Appendix II then no link budgets are required to be conducted for these terminals? | Answer 108b: Yes, link budgets are only required for terminals listed in Appendix II where frequency band and data rates are provided. | ||
| 109 | PWS Section 6.2.2.1 | 8 of 52 | This section states: “Acceptability of inclined orbit satellites by region may be dependent upon the compatibility of terminals for that region and their operational capacity as defined in Appendix I – User Terminal Segment Characteristics when purchasing non-baseline capacity.” | Question 109a: Does the “dependent upon the compatibility” reference suggest that inclined orbit capacity cannot be used with all terminals? If the answer is that inclined orbit (IO) capacity cannot be used with all terminals, will the Government please clarify which terminals are or are not IO compatible? | Answer 109a: All end user RF terminals in the current Navy inventory can track inclined satellites as specified in PWS Section 6.2.2. |
| Question 109b: Does the fact that baseline capacity is not referenced in this section indicate that inclined orbit capacity is not allowed for baseline capacity? | Answer 109b: Inclined satellites may be used to satisfy baseline or non-baseline requirements as long as they meet the end-to-end service and performance requirements. | ||||
| 110 | PWS Section 6.2.3 - Subtask 3 - Frequency Ranges | 8 of 52 | Will the Government allow the use of cross-strap transponders as long as the GFE Satcom terminal still receives and transmits in one frequency band? For example, would the Government allow use of a transponder which uses C-Band at the CT connected to Ku-Band at the GFE terminal? | Cross strapped transponders may be used as long as they meet the end-to-end service and performance requirements. | |
| 111 | PWS Section 6.2.3 - Subtask 3 - Frequency Ranges | 8 of 52 | Do the frequency range requirements apply to Commercial Teleports? Can a CT transmit and receive in an extended frequency if the customer’s terminal still receives in the frequency ranges stated in Table 1 of paragraph 6.2.3? | Unless otherwise directed, the offeror shall utilize CTs. The offeror can utilize any solution as long as it meets the end-to-end service and performance requirements. | |
| 112 | PWS Section 6.2.3 - Subtask 3 - Frequency Ranges | 8 of 52 | Is the Mil Ka-band coverage required at all times or can the solution use a movable spot beam that the Government controls? | Ka-band coverage will be provided as stated in Appendix II. Spot beams are an acceptable solution as long as it meets the end-to-end service and performance requirements. | |
| 113 | PWS Section 6.2.3 - Subtask 3 - Frequency Ranges | 8 of 52 | In order for industry to propose a solution that is cost effective to the Government, given that most commercial Ka-band satellites are configured to offer bandwidth in narrow spot beams (hundreds of miles in diameter), can the government provide more detailed information about the routes/specific areas where they intend to operate? | The Government will not provide any additional information regarding the routes/specific areas. Solutions should be provided based on the bandwidth requirements of Appendix II and the operational regions defined in PWS Section 6.2.8.4 | |
| 114 | PWS Section 6.2.3 & Attachment 1 | 12 of 52 | Commercial Ka-band coverage suitable for airborne comms-on-the-move services are delivered from the up-stream providers on a subscription basis. | Will the Government consider changing the CLIN structure to allow for subscription service-based pricing to the Government specified terminal? | The Government will not change the CLIN structure to allow for subscription service-based pricing to the Government specified terminal. |
| 115 | PWS Sections 6.2.5 & 6.2.5.1 | 8 of 52 | Paragraph 6.2.5 is titled “Subtask 5 – Satellite Link Availability”, and is a title only. Paragraph 6.2.5.1 is titled: “Satellite Availability” and refers to an Ao of 99.99 for the satellite bandwidth and goes on further to address Satellite Availability Reports. | Should Paragraph 6.2.5 be titled” Satellite Availability” versus “Satellite Link Availability”? | Yes, it should be Satellite Availability. PWS Section 6.2.5 has been updated to reflect this change. |
| 116 | PWS Sections 6.2.8 & 6.2.8.4 Appendix I | 9 & 10 of 52 | Paragraph 6.2.8, in the last sentence, refers to Appendix I for determining elevation angle requirements. Paragraph 6.2.8.4 states that the elevation angle shall be no lower than 15 degrees. Appendix I contains requirement restrictions for some elevation angles (UAV2 X & Ka band) of “–10” degrees. | What is the minimum elevation angle? | For the purposes of this RFP, the offeror should base all solutions on a 15 degree elevation look angle as stated in PWS Section 6.2.8.4. |
| 117 | PWS Sections 6.2.8.2 & 6.2.8.3 | 10 of 52 | Beam Shaping and Beam Steering features are enhanced capabilities. | How are offerors to price such capabilities, and how will the provision of these capabilities be evaluated, both from a technical and a price perspective? | It is up to the offeror to decide how to price these capabilities. |
| 118 | PWS Section 6.2.8.4 - Operating Regions | 10 of 52 | This paragraph is titled “Operating Regions”. However, the first sentence of this paragraph deals with “elevation angles”. | Question 118a: Is the first sentence of this paragraph misplaced? | Answer 118a: No, the first sentence is not misplaced. |
| Question 118b: Does the first sentence of Paragraph 6.2.8.4 belong at the end of Paragraph 6.2.8? | Answer 118b: No, the first sentence belongs where it is. | ||||
| 119 | PWS Section 6.2.8.4 - Operating Regions | Request clarify if Operating Regions (6.2.8 & subsections) will be included in the evaluation of the Space Segment as part of one of the identified elements. | Question 119a: If so, request identify what element would include evaluation of coverage requirements. | Answer 119a: Section M for the RFP states "The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical solution demonstrates a sound, complete, and adequate plan to meet the requirements below: (1) Element 1 – Satellite Capacity. The offerors ability to provide satellite resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy bandwidth capacity identified in the PWS Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates." (2) Element 2 – Space Segment Quality. The offerors approach to ensure Space segment quality as defined in PWS Section 6.2.2 (3) Element 3 – Satellite Availability. The offerors approach to ensuring Satellite Availability as defined in PWS Section 6.2.5.1 The offerors will submit a proposal that will satisfy this element. |
| Question 119b: If coverage is not being included in the analysis for any element, could an offeror be awarded a strength for their proposal in terms of the operating regions or coverage offered? | Answer 119b: Only the evaluation factors stated in Section M will be evaluated on a best value trade-off basis. | ||||
| Question 119c: If Operating Regions/Coverage is being evaluated, will coverage maps and associated coverage descriptions be included in the page count? | Answer 119c: Coverage maps will not be included in the page count. The Government has revised Section L 2.2.1 to reflect this change. | ||||
| 120 | PWS Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, & 6.3.6 Section L 4.2.2.3 Section M, Subfactor 3 | 13-15, 47 of 52 110 of 115 | Section M, Subfactor 3 – Terrestrial Services Requirements references only PWS 6.3.2 and 6.3.5. | Will PWS paragraphs 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, and 6.3.6 be evaluated? If so, will they be evaluated under Subfactor 2 or Subfactor 3? | The evaluation elements are clearly stated in Section M. |
| 121 | PWS Section 6.3.2 - Subtask 2 – Network Sizing | 13 of 52 | This paragraph states that the CFE installed at each NDP shall be sized to support at least 48 simultaneous serial and 48 simultaneous Ethernet circuits. | Can the Government identify the total amount of backhaul connectivity (i.e. capacity) that is required at each NDP to support the baseline requirement? To support the non-baseline requirement? | The offeror shall provide backhaul connectivity to meet the requirements of PWS Section 6.3.5. |
| 122 | PWS Section 6.3.2 - Subtask 2 – Network Sizing | The CFE installed at each NDP shall be sized to support at least 48 simultaneous serial and 48 simultaneous Ethernet circuits. | What type Ethernet - Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, or Gigabit Ethernet? | Gigabit Ethernet | |
| 123 | PWS Section 6.3.3.2 | 14 of 52 | The Government states that they will provide GFE for up to seven CTs | Can industry assume that Ka-band teleport equipment is excluded from the count of up to seven CTs? | The Government will provide GFE to support up to seven CTs. GFE modems will be used to support all Navy circuits. The offeror will be responsible for all other equipment at the CTs. |
| 124 | PWS Section 6.3.3.6 | 14 of 52 | This paragraph states that the contractor will support “Internet Protocol” data to an external connection from a CT to an NDP not listed in Appendix III, on demand. | Please confirm that this connection will be used for IP traffic and not SCPC (serial) connections. | The connections required in PWS Section 6.3.3.6 are IP. |
| 125 | PWS Section 6.3.3.7 | When requested by the Government, the CTs shall be able to provide unclassified public internet access connection services to end user terminals. | What are the IP address requirements? Will the Government accept a single IP for NAT? | The offeror can propose any solution that meets the end-to-end service requirements. | |
| 126 | PWS Section 6.3.5 - Subtask 5 - Backhaul and NDP Connectivity | 15 of 52 | Please provide clarity on the percentage distribution of traffic between various NDPs so as to size the network currently and also retain surge capacity. | The offeror can propose any solution that meets the end-to-end service requirements. | |
| 127 | PWS Section 6.3.5 - Subtask 5 - Backhaul and NDP Connectivity | 15 of 52 | Please quantify as a percentage “surge capacity”. | The offeror can propose any solution that meets the end-to-end service requirements. | |
| 128 | PWS Section 6.3.5.2 | 15 of 52 | This paragraph states that the contractor shall provide backhaul connectivity to meet the baseline space segment requirements. Furthermore, 6.3.5.3 states that the backhaul infrastructure shall accommodate the baseline data throughput requirements, non-baseline requirements, M&C traffic, and any data management overhead as well as provide AES-256 encryption across the backhaul. This infrastructure shall be scalable to accommodate future surge. | Question 128a: Can the Government please clarify the intent behind the words “provide” vs. “accommodate”? Shall the contractor provide enough connectivity to meet the baseline requirement, or enough connectivity to meet the baseline plus non-baseline requirement? | Answer 128a: The offeror shall size the architecture to accommodate the requirements of both PWS Sections 6.3.5.2 and 6.3.5.3 |
| Question 128b: Shall the contractor provide AES-256 encryption on all backhaul links, or shall the contractor’s backhaul infrastructure support the option for AES-256 encryption if/when requested by the Government? | Answer 128b: Yes, AES-256 encryption shall be implemented on all backhaul connections, this is not optional. | ||||
| 129 | PWS Section 6.3.6.4 - Equipment Refresh | 16 of 52 | Please confirm that any equipment associated with Equipment Refresh will be GFE. | Equipment refresh may be both CFE and GFE. | |
| 130 | PWS Section 6.3.6.8 - GFE Troubleshooting and Repair at CTs | Troubleshooting and Repair at CTs. Per this PWS section, Government shall assume all shipping charges. | As part of the shipping charges, will the Government assume all VAT and custom charges? | Yes, for GFE only. | |
| 131 | PWS Sections 6.4 - Task 4 - CSSC Transition Support and Implementation 6.4.1 - Subtask 1 - Transition Support Plan | 16 of 52 | This paragraph states that “the contractor shall develop a plan for the implementation of the terrestrial standup and transition to new services for the end users. Within 7 days after task order award the Government will provide a schedule based on the contractor’s proposed plan.” | Please confirm that the plan discussed in this paragraph is to be included in the proposal submission. If that is not the case, please identify the deadline for delivery of this plan. Please distinguish between the “plan” discussed in 6.4 and the “Transition Support Plan” described in 6.4.1. | Yes, this plan shall be provided as part of the offeror's proposal. |
| 132 | PWS Section 6.6 - Task 6 - CSSC M&C and Webtool | Question 132a: What is the maximum display resolution to be support by the Web Tool interface? | Answer 132a: 1920 x 1080 | ||
| Question 132b: Which Web browsers need to be supported? | Answer 132b: Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 9 or earlier. | ||||
| 133 | PWS Section 6.6.2.3.1.6 | The status of any CFE or GFE that is logged out of service or operating in a hazardous condition shall be displayed on the Web Tool and provided in the Daily Service Report. The information shall include equipment description, location, operational impact, and estimated time to repair. | How do we determine if a GFE is operating in a hazardous condition? | Once a defect with GFE is reported, the Government will determine if GFE is operating in a hazardous condition. | |
| 134 | PWS Section 6.6.2.6 - Web Tool Security | The contractor shall provide a hierarchy of users, roles, and assigned domains. The contractor shall control access to the Web Tool by an administrator. Administrative features shall include the capability of recording any items created, edited, and deleted. These records shall be retained and accessible to the Government for the duration of the contract. The contractor shall provide different levels of access to the Web Tool to the users based on the level of appropriate authorization to data and resources, and also based on the credentials of the authenticated user. | Question 134a: What are the expected roles and hierarchy? | Answer 134a: The offeror will propose the roles and hierarchy to meet the requirements. | |
| Question 134b: What kind of access to information should the various roles have? | Answer 134b: The offer will propose the access to information to meet the requirements. | ||||
| Question 134c: What abilities should each access level have in terms of read, write, contribute, change, etc.? | Answer 134c: The offeror will propose the abilities for each access level. | ||||
| 135 | PWS Section 6.7 - Task 7 - Management Controls for CSSC Program | 26 of 52 | Will Task 7 – Management Controls for the CSSC Program be evaluated? If so, under what subfactor? | Please refer to Section M of the RFP for the descriptions of the evaluation factors. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .