CSSC_DRFP_Q A_07142014.docx

Questions 1-38 were previously answered and posted on June 30, 2014

The questions are presented in the manner in which they were submitted.

QUESTION 39: Upon initial review of the CSSC DRFP Solicitation Documentation, we identified a discrepancy between the embedded excel spreadsheet on page 64 and the separate attachment excel spreadsheet regarding the CSSC Bandwidth Estimates. Specifically, we identified the following:

1. X-Band – Both the embedded and attached estimates show the requirement as non-baseline, but the bandwidth estimates do not match. It seems the embedded version has a greater capacity requirement than the attachment. Need clarification of which excel spreadsheet is the definitive bandwidth estimate moving forward.

2. Ka-Band – The embedded excel spreadsheet shows the Ka-Band requirement to be a “Baseline” requirement, while the attachment shows “Non-Baseline”. Need clarification of whether the Ka-Band estimates for Aero support are baseline or non-baseline for planning and strategy purposes.

ANSWER 39: Revised Draft RFP posted to FBO on June 19, 2014. The embedded bandwidth estimate table in the Draft RFP was removed. This information will be clarified in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 40: For the previous contract, the current incumbent provide a “take all the bandwidth or none at all” making a less than competitive award. How is the Gov’t going to guard against bundling by the operators?

ANSWER 40: The Government cannot control industry practices. The Government anticipates innovative solutions from industry and expects robust competition.

QUESTION 41: How is the govt going to ensure how the two satellite operators that control all c-band circular capacity does not seem to monopolize the capacity?

ANSWER 41: The requirement for c-band is as stated in the PWS.

QUESTION 42: If the government doesn’t provide a cost plus for circular c-band capacity, how does the government plan to achieve true competition for this capacity?

ANSWER 42: The Government cannot control industry practices. The Government anticipates innovative solutions from industry and expects robust competition.

QUESTION 43: RFP Section 5.2 states: “The information submitted shall reference the offerors past performance, rather than past performance of the offerors teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or significant subcontractors” This seems to contradict the previous paragraph which states “the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner and/or joint partner, authorizing release of past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. Please clarify that the past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner can be used by an offeror to demonstrate its ability to perform the proposed effort.

ANSWER 43: The Government will clarify the past performance instructions in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 44: Some terminals identified in ATT7 do not have BW allocations listed in ATT6 (e.g. NMT). Will that be corrected?

ANSWER 44: This omission will be resolved in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 45: Some Navy POR terminals (eg NAVAIR TRITON) not included in DRFP. Recommend they be added.

ANSWER 45: The Government will review the types of supported RF terminals, and if needed, will clarify the information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 46: How many small business responses did you receive to the sources sought for the CBSP re-compete?

ANSWER 46: There were several responses to the Sources Sought announcement from small businesses.

QUESTION 47: Do you plan to do CSSC as a small business set-aside?

ANSWER 47: The Government anticipates soliciting this acquisition using full and open competition. The Government does not anticipate setting aside any part of the requirement. Large business participants will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan as part of their proposals in order to encourage small business participation.

QUESTION 48: What actions does the U.S. Navy and DISA plan to take to mitigate the current C-Band monopoly (Intelsat and SES) which limits real competition for CSSC?

ANSWER 48: The Government cannot control industry practices. The Government anticipates innovative solutions from industry and expects robust competition.

QUESTION 49: Does IA Matrix apply to web tool?

ANSWER 49: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify IA requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 50: With respect to the current deadline for submission of comments relative to the subject DRAFT RFP, MTN Government Services is respectfully requesting an extension of one week in order to assure an adequate and thorough review of the Government’s questions and answers from the recently conducted CSSC Industry Day event (when available), can be completed prior to finalizing and submitting our comments.

ANSWER 50: The questions that were answered at Industry Day, the attendance roster, and the slides were all posted to FBO on June 30, 2014. The response date for comments/questions was extended to July 8, 2014.

QUESTION 51: All of the X-Band capable terminals identified in Appendix I state the TX Carrier Polarization is RHCP (fixed). LHCP TX polarization is also available commercially. Will any Navy X-Band terminals be LHCP TX capable?

ANSWER 51: All solutions must support the RF terminal capabilities as described in Appendix I of the RFP.

QUESTION 52: The Section M Evaluation Factors states, Cost or Price Factor states, “The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.” Request the Government clarify what is meant by total price proposed for basic requirements and all options.

ANSWER 52: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the cost/price evaluation in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 53: PWS 6.2.1. How will the Government evaluate a contractor’s compliance with the requirement to “demonstrate the ability to provide satellite resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy bandwidth capacity indented in Appendix II”? Will the Government require letters from satellite operators to demonstrate that the bandwidth proposed will be available at contract award, or will self-certification in the proposal be sufficient?

ANSWER 53: Self-certification will be acceptable. The winning vendor will be responsible for providing the service as described and as accepted for the life of the contract. If an alternate solution should become necessary, an ECP will need to be completed in accordance with the PWS and the level of service must be commensurate with the original solution.

QUESTION 54: PWS 6.2.1. At CSSC Industry Day, the Government stated that its acquisition schedule is CSSC Final RFP release on 3 September 2014 and proposal submissions due on 16 October 2014. However, the Government is not planning to make an award decision until the following year on 1 September 2015. The significant timelag between the planned RFP submission due date and contract award decision may significantly disadvantage non-incumbent competitors, who may be required to procure bandwidth in advance and/or pay reservation fees to “hold” bandwidth from the period from 16 October 2014 to 1 September 2015. That, in turn, would likely result in either higher pricing to the Government by non-incumbent providers and/or a decision by a number of otherwise qualified bidders to no-bid the CSSC opportunity. Will the Government consider adding provisions to enable a “ramp-up” of bandwidth capacity during the transition period for full operational capability on the new system (within 180 days after issuance of the task order)?

ANSWER 54: The schedule stated is a notional schedule that includes worst case scenarios. The Government does not intend to hold up the contract award unnecessarily. The Government expects the awardee to perform as stated in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 55: PWS 6.6. Will the CSSC Monitoring and Control and Web Based Monitoring Tool (Web Tool) that is proposed in PWS 6.6 be considered Government-owned property after delivery to the Government on CSSC?

ANSWER 55: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 56: PWS 6.6. Is the current CBSP I Monitoring and Control and Web Based Monitoring Tool that is used on the incumbent contract, or any elements of the current Web Tool, considered to be Government-owned? If it is Government-owned, would the Government consider enhancements to the current Web Tool as part of a proposed CSSC solution, rather than the deployment of a new Web Tool, to be acceptable?

ANSWER 56: The current web-based monitoring tool is not owned by the Government. Any proposed CSSC solution must meet the requirements of the Final RFP.

QUESTION 57: PWS 6.7.2. Does the Government request that a resume of the Program Manager specified in PWS 6.7.2 be included in the proposal, or will a summary of qualifications suffice?

ANSWER 57: The Government will review this section and if needed, provide clarification in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 58: PWS 6.7.2. Will the Program Manager be considered to be “key personnel’ on the program, with any Government-requirements for advance notice of changes in the PM and/or approval by the Government prior to substitutions after contract award?

ANSWER 58: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 59: RFP Section L, 2.2. Given the scope and complexity of the requirement, request that the Government increase page count from 70 to 100 pages for Volume II (Technical/Management). Alternatively, will the Government adjust the requirement for 1.5 line spacing (in Section L. 2.2.2) to 1 line spacing?

ANSWER 59:

The Government will specify the page count and line spacing in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 60: RFP Section L, 2.2.1. The draft RFP excludes the cover page, table of contents, glossary, link budgets, Information Assurance Compliance Matrix, and Organizational Conflict of Interest Plans from page count limitations. If the Government requests that satellite EIRP and G/T contours and satellite availability reports be included in the final version of the RFP, will those attachments also be excluded from page count limitations?

ANSWER 60: The Government will clarify what attachments will be exempt from the final page count in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 61: RFP Section L, 5.2, Past performance. The draft RFP currently limits past performance to only the prime contractor. To provide the best opportunity to evaluate the total capabilities of a team’s offering, will the Government expand this section to enable subcontractor past performance for 1 or more relevant contracts to be submitted?

ANSWER 61: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the past performance information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 62: M002 Evaluation Factors, Section a.(1). To enable the Government to evaluate the terrestrial and commercial teleport services that are proposed and make a best value determination, will the Government consider including a Section M, Factor 1 evaluation factor that is based on the requirements of PWS 6.3, Terrestrial Services Technical Performance and Requirements?

ANSWER 62: The Government will review this section and ensure the evaluation factors in section M are clearly stated in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 63: M002 Evaluation Factors, Section a.(1). Given the significant amount of data currently resident within the Web Tool Historical Database (PWS 6.6.2.5) that is now available only to the incumbent provider, will the Government consider removing Factor 1, Subfactor 4 from the RFP section M002 Evaluation Factors?

ANSWER 63: The Government will review this section and ensure the evaluation factors in section M are clearly stated in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 64: PWS 6.2.2 and 6.2.8.4 state that the required look angle is 15 degrees. Attachment 7, CSSC User Terminal Segment states Terminal Look Angle Restrictions which vary from 10 degrees to no restrictions. Request clarification of the CSSC look angle requirements.

ANSWER 64: The Government will provide clarification of the look angle in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 65: PWS 6.3.6.8 GFE 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?

ANSWER 65: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify shipping charges in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 66: PWS 6.9 Frequency Clearance and Approvals. The non-bandwidth pricing sheet provides no obvious cells for proposing pricing for HNAs, landing rights, operating agreements, site licenses, and FCs. Request clarification of pricing for PWS 6.9 items.

ANSWER 66: The Government will review this section and if needed, provide clarification on HNAs and FCs in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 67: Section M para c. Evaluation of Options. The government requests “The pricing proposal shall include a separate line item for the additional 6-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8”. Request the government clarify “separate line item.” Will this be by Region or by individual CLIN?

ANSWER 67: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the cost/price evaluation in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 68: The “Summary Sheet” in Attachment 1_CSSC Price Schedule_V9 sums up the price per MHz per month figures (as outlined in the CLIN Structure guidelines). As it appears, this weights smaller bandwidth increments pricing equal to the larger bandwidth increments which may not meet the Government’s actual purchasing goals. Will the Government supply estimated quantities to price against (e.g. sample year quantities and term duration) to provide a more equitable pricing scale?

ANSWER 68: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the cost/price evaluation in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 69: Section 2.2.2.1 of the solicitation states: “Pages shall be double spaced/typed with 1.5 line spacing.”

Pages can be either double spaced or have 1.5 line spacing, not both. Please clarify the instruction. Additionally, Section 6 - Performance Requirements consists of 37 single-spaced pages. A double spaced response requirement requires Contractors to respond to 37 single-space pages of requirements in essentially 35 single-spaced pages (i.e. 70 double-spaced). A line spacing of 1.5 at least provides provide the equivalent of 11 extra pages, which facilitates our ability to provide a clear, concise proposal with sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of our stated claims. The additional pages also allows Contractors to better satisfy the requirement that we “provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology (we) would use for accomplishing/satisfying (subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award).”

ANSWER 69: The Government will clearly state the line spacing in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 70: The FBO Announcement provides the following:

Primary Point of Contact:

Jennifer Forhy, Contract Specialist jennifer.d.forhy.civ@mail.mil Phone: 6182299313

However, the solicitation states:

2.1.1. Point of Contact

The contracting officer (KO) is the sole point of contact for this procurement. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the KO. Written requests for clarification must be sent to the KO at the address located in Section A of the solicitation.

Please clarify industry’s POC for the CSSC procurement.

ANSWER 70: The Government will clarify the POCs in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 71: The second paragraph in Section L-5.1 General reads: Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

Section L-5.2 Relevant Contracts reads: The information submitted shall reference the offeror’s past performance, rather than past performance of the offeror’s teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or significant subcontractors.

Please clarify whether the Government wants Past Performance of significant partners and/or subcontractors submitted as part of the Contractor’s proposal.

ANSWER 71: The Government will clarify the past performance instructions in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 72: The solicitation states:

2.2.2.6 Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall –

(i) Mark the title page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(ii) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(iii) Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

Should 2.2.2.6 read as follows? If not, please clarify the instructions above, especially item (iii).

2.2.2.6 Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall –

(i) Mark the title page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(ii) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal

ANSWER 72: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the instructions to offeror in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 73: The solicitation reads:

6.1.1.9 Design solution: The contractor shall provide a solution design document that describes, in detail, how the end-to-end performance requirements listed in Section 6 of this PWS shall be achieved and include a network topology diagram. A draft solution design shall be delivered 7 calendar days after the task order award date. The final solution design shall be delivered 21 calendar days after task order award date.

Given that the draft and final solutions are required after Task Order award, please clarify what the Government expects as part of a Contractor’s Proposal. Is the solution design document required in the proposal different than the draft solution? Is the Government requesting a solution design approach in the proposal?

ANSWER 73: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the requirements for the design solution in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 74: PWS 6.4.5 Will the Government please provide a list of GFE available to the contractor as it will be used in the contractor’s solution. There is a mention of the 45 modems that will be available for the contractor to use for transition, but no mention of other GFE available for use during the transition.

ANSWER 74: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify availability of GFE in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 75: PWS 6.6.2 Will the Government accept a thin-client based tool (an application requiring an applet download to the user terminal) in lieu of a solely Internet browser, web based tool?

ANSWER 75: All solutions must meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 76: PWS 6.12.5 Subtask 5 – DIACAP states the Government wants the Contractor to prepare and deliver the entire DIACAP package, as opposed to supporting them with the development as is more typical. Please confirm that the Government intends to have the Contractor prepare the entire DIACAP package.

ANSWER 76: All solutions must meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 77: What level of interaction is expected to the GSOE -- manual entry to the web tool, automated in which the tool pulls in relevant information, or semi-automated with a combination of both? If automated or semi-automated will the Government provide an ICD/format legend?

ANSWER 77: All solutions must meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 78: PWS 6.6.2.5 The contractor shall format all statistical information provided to the Web Tool in an Extensible Markup Language (XML) format to facilitate export from the Web Tool for analysis. This appears to be directive for architecture implementation. Will the Government accept an export to XML capability for the statistical information without regard to the data transport used for display?

ANSWER 78: All solutions must meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 79: PWS 6.6.2.3.3.4 Summary of the cause of interference and the actions taken to resolve detected interference and to prevent future interference issues from occurring. Will the Government clarify that this is a user log entry to the system and not an automation expectation?

ANSWER 79: All solutions must meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 80: PWS 6.6.2.1.14 In the event of a Web Tool outage, the contractor shall provide all required reporting via email until the Web Tool is restored. Please clarify the Government’s expectation regarding this requirement? The web tool is the source of information. Thus, how does the Government expect reporting to continue?

ANSWER 80: All reporting shall meet the requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 81: PWS 6.1.2 (“Subtask 2 – Outage Credits”) on page 16 and Clause 52.239-9000 (“Outage Credits”) on page 80 discuss different methods for the calculation of outage credits. Please confirm the methodology that will be used for the calculation of outage credits.

ANSWER 81: The Government will clarify the calculation of outage credits in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 82: PWS 6.2.1.2: For Non-Baseline Bandwidth, how much time is allowed following issuance of a task order to make bandwidth available for use?

ANSWER 82: Timeframes for non-baseline bandwidth requirements will be determined at the time of need. The Government will review this section and if needed, provide additional clarification in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 83: PWS 6.3.2: This section discusses CFE that is required in NDPs at NCTAMS in Norfolk (LANT), Wahiawa (PAC), and Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station (NCTS) Bahrain but Appendix III also lists a NCTAMS in Naples. Should the contractor also provide CFE at Naples?

ANSWER 83: The Government will clarify number and location of the NDPs in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 84: PWS 6.3.3.4: Will the Government also accept frequency converter and High Power Amplifier equipment at the CT that is in a 1:2 redundancy configuration as long as the availability requirement for the CT is met?

ANSWER 84: All solutions must meet the availability requirements as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION 85: PWS 6.4.5: Will the Government provide any Vipersat Management System equipment to start the initial transition?

ANSWER 85: The Government will clarify the type and numbers of GFE that will be made available in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 86: PWS 6.6.2.1.2: Please clarify the meaning of the term “being used in support of CSSC missions”. For example, does this include test equipment and other ancillary equipment not connected to the network?

ANSWER 86: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify supporting equipment in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 87: PWS 6.6.2.5: Will CBSP I operational and statistical information be provided to the contractor for incorporation into the CSSC Web Tool Historical Database?

ANSWER 87: The Government does not intend to import operational or statistical information into the new CSSC Web Tool Historical Database.

QUESTION 88: PWS 6.6.2.9: This section mentioned that the contractor shall demonstrate their proposed Web Tool solution at the Kick-Off meeting as per paragraph 6.7.1.3.1. We are unable to locate 6.7.1.3.1.

ANSWER 88: All numbering will be updated in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 89: PWS Appendix I: Knowing the number of terminals in operation by terminal type will help the vendor develop a more comprehensive transition plan and bandwidth allocation. Will the Government provide this information?

ANSWER 89: The Government does not intend to provide the quantities of fielded terminals.

QUESTION 90: PWS Attachment 7: In Attachment 7, columns P, Q, and R, the Government lists some Viasat Ku-band and some TBD Ku and Ka-band airborne terminal equipment. Will the Government provide the hubs at the CT for these terminals? If not, is this a subscription service? IF this is a subscription service, is it proprietary to ViaSat? If this is a proprietary service, should the system for these three terminals be part of a separate sole source procurement?

ANSWER 90: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 91: PWS Reference Section 28 (GFE/GFI), 7.1.4.4: We’ve conducted a web search, but we’re unable to locate the technical manual for the MD-1030B. Will the Government provide the technical manual?

ANSWER 91: The Government will provide the manual in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 92: PWS Attachment 7 lists the baseline data rate for the WSC-8(V) terminal as 3.456 Mbps but Attachment 6, C-Band tab, has the data rate required for the WSC-8 terminal as 4.096 Mbps. Which is correct?

ANSWER 92: The Government will review this section and if needed, update the attachments in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 93: Section L - 2.2.1: Please confirm that tab dividers and the consent letters referenced in Section 5.1 are excluded from the page count.

ANSWER 93: The Government will clarify which items will be included in the page count in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 94: Section L - 2.2.2.1: Are there any font and size restrictions for the printed version of the IA matrix? Can the landscape orientation be used for the printed version? Can pages larger than 8 ½ X 11 be used?

ANSWER 94: The Government will clarify the format for the IA Matrix in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 95: Section L - 2.2.2.5: The amount of information required by this section is likely to exceed the space limitations of a title page. We recommend that the Government consider allowing Offerors to provide this information in the proposal cover letter or in Volume I or V.

ANSWER 95: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the Section L requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 96: Section L - 2.2.2.6: We believe that the text at (ii), which is an exact duplicate of the text at (i), was provided in error. Please confirm that Offerors should use the text provided at (iii) and not the text provided at both (ii) and (iii), to identify those pages that contain data that they wish to restrict.

ANSWER 96: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the Section L requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 97: Section L - Section 2.2.3 states that all pricing information shall be addressed in the Contract Documentation volume, but Section 2.1 (“Proposal Organization”) lists a Volume IV (“Cost/Price”). Please confirm that all pricing information shall be addressed in the Cost/Price volume.

ANSWER 97: The Government will clarify the cost/price information and volumes in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 98: Section L - 2.3: Should individual CDs be used for the submission of each proposal volume, or is it permissible to combine all proposal volumes on a single CD?

ANSWER 98: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the Section L requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 99: Section L - 2.4: What steps should an Offeror take to coordinate hand delivery of a proposal? Will delivery of proposals via Federal Express be accepted? If so, please confirm that Federal Express delivery to the Government installation at 2300 East Drive Building 3600 by the proposal due date and time will be deemed in conformance with the proposal submission deadline.

ANSWER 99: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the Section L requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 100: Section L - 4.2.2: Please clarify the desired organization of the Technical/Management volume. Should this volume be organized in alignment with the Performance Requirements of the PWS (i.e., Tasks 1 through 15), or should it be organized in alignment with Subfactors 1 through 5?

ANSWER 100: The Technical/Management Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents

(1) List of Table and Drawings

(2) Glossary

(3) Cross Reference Matrix

(4) Subfactor 1 – Satellite Coverage

(5) Subfactor 2 – End-to-End Performance Requirements

(6) Subfactor 3 – CSSC Transition Planning & Implementation

(7) Subfactor 4 – Web Based Monitoring Tool (Web Tool)

(8) Subfactor 5 – Information Assurance (IA)

The Government will also clarify the volume organization in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 101: Section L - 4.2.2: Should the link budgets and the IA Compliance Matrix be submitted as appendices to Volume II (Technical/Management)?

ANSWER 101: Yes. The Government will also clarify this information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 102: Section L - 5.1 and 5.2: Section 5.2 says “. . . The information submitted shall reference the offeror’s past performance, rather than past performance of the offeror’s teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or significant subcontractors. . . . “ But this seems to contradict the last paragraph of Section 5.1, which states: “. . . the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.” Please clarify if the past performance of a subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner can be used by an offeror to demonstrate its ability to perform the proposed effort.

ANSWER 102: The Government will clarify the past performance instructions in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 103: PWS 6.1.4 - Subtask 4 – As-Built Drawing Packages. Some tasks, like this one, will be difficult to propose on a fixed price basis. Will the Government create a cost-plus or time and material CLIN to address this type of work?

ANSWER 103: The Government does not anticipate using any cost-plus or time and material CLIN’s for this requirement. The Government anticipates using a firm fixed price contract only.

QUESTION 104: PWS 6.5.2 - Subtask 2 – Service Interruptions. “Any outages occurring outside the authorized scheduled service interruption timeframe shall be considered downtime as stated in Section 6.1.1.10.2.” Downtime defined in Section 6.1.1.12 (paragraph numbering error?)

ANSWER 104: All numbering will be updated in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 105: PWS 6.7.4 - Subtask 4 – Meetings and Reviews. 6.7.4.3, 6.7.4.5: Some tasks, like this one, will be difficult to propose on a fixed price basis. Will the Government create a cost-plus or time and material CLIN to address this type of work?

ANSWER 105: The Government does not anticipate using any cost-plus or time and material CLIN’s for this requirement. The Government anticipates using a firm fixed price contract only.

QUESTION 106: PWS 6.13.1 - Subtask 1 – TP. “A sample TP in the Microsoft Excel format is provided as a separate attachment to the RFP.” Attachment not found.

ANSWER 106: The Government will provide the attachment in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 107: PWS 6.13.2 - Subtask 2 – Frequency Matrix. “Appendix V provides a template for the frequency matrix to be provided.” Referenced Appendix V not included.

ANSWER 107: The Government will provide the Appendix in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 108: PWS 7.2 / 15.2 - Identification of Non-Disclosure Requirements. “No sensitive or proprietary information will be made available to the contractor during contract or task order execution.” Please clarify intent. Is this intended to address proprietary information from other contractors?

ANSWER 108: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the non-disclosure requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 109: Attachment 6. Bandwidth Estimate Table II-1.xlxs. In some instances, the bandwidth estimates provided in this attachment, and the number of circuits required for each terminal type, appear to be lower than the number of terminals that have been/are being procured and may be in operation at any one time. Will the number of terminals and required bandwidth be adjusted as a function of time to reflect the increase in number of terminals and associated increase in bandwidth requirements?

ANSWER 109: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify Bandwidth Estimates in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 110: Attachment 7. CSSC User Terminal Segment.xls. Please confirm that the aperture size of the “Airborne Ku-band” terminal and “Airborne Ka-band” terminal are different (11.5 and 12 in.)

ANSWER 110: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify this information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 111: PWS 6.3.3.4 Subtask 3 – “The contractor shall equip the CT antennas with 1:1 redundant frequency converters and High Power Amplifiers that are 1:1 redundant with automatic switchover.” Do both the frequency converters and the HPA need to have automatic switchover? Or just the HPA? Please clarify.

ANSWER 111: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify this information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 112: PWS 6.3.3.7. Please clarify what is a “Government provided connection”

ANSWER 112: The Government will clarify what a Government provided connection is in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 113: PWS 6.3.3.8 - The security level required for public internet access connection is not specified. Specify the level of security for the public internet access connection, and who is responsible for providing the security appliance.

ANSWER 113: Public internet connections will operate at the UNCLASS level.

QUESTION 114: PWS 6.3.6.4 – “At the Government’s direction, the contractor shall optimize the network by employing more bandwidth efficient equipment.” More efficient than what? And how many times can the Government direct that the contractor replace existing equipment? Please clarify.

ANSWER 114: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify this information in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 115: PWS 6.4.2 Subtask 1 – Transition Support Plan - "14 days after award" needs to follow the Government’s transition plan (within 7 days in 6.4.1).

ANSWER 115: The Government will clarify the timeframes for the transition plan in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 116: PWS 6.6.2.3.1.2 and 6.6.3.1.3 - these sections levy a requirement to "refresh every 5 seconds". Is the requirement to refresh the screen display every 5 seconds or to actually perform a new measurement of packet loss, jitter, port status, ebno every 5 seconds? Please clarify.

ANSWER 116: The Government will clarify the refresh requirements in the Final RFP.

QUESTION 117: PWS 6.8.3 Subtask 2 – Post-Installation Testing. Please specify the performance tests for IP/MPLS based terrestrial connections between CT and NDP

ANSWER 117: The Government will review this section and if needed, clarify the performance tests in the Final RFP.