Q A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC1013-14-R-0004
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Questions and Answers
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 Posted 9-26
| Question # | RFP Section & Title | Page # | Issue/Concern | Comment/Suggestion | Government's Response |
| 1 | PWS section 6.3.4 - DoD Teleport Connectivity | 19 of 115 | The PWS calls for contractor monitoring of uplinks (teleport transmit carrier) from DoD teleports. This would require contractor remote access and control of spectrum analyzers located at the DoD teleports. | Question 1a: Is it the intent of the government to provide GFE Spectrum Analyzers for this purpose, and if so, what make & models and at what locations? | Quality Monitoring of all up and down links will be performed by the contractor at their facilities. No remote access to DoD teleport equipment will be provided. Answer 1a: The contractor will utilize CFE Spectrum Analyzers. The spec an model will be decided by the contractor. |
| Question 1b: Will the government provide the required Internet or dedicated circuit connectivity between the contractor facility and the DoD teleports for direct spectrum monitoring? | Answer 1b: Remote monitoring at DoD facilities is not required. | ||||
| Question 1c: What is the demarcation point for the monitoring circuits between contractor facilities and the DoD teleports, and what hardware is GFE (ie. router, switch, firewall, etc)? | Answer 1c: No demarc is necessary as there will be no remote monitoring at DoD facilities. | ||||
| Question 1d: Who will be responsible for configuring and maintaining router & firewall policies for hardware on the monitoring circuits to meet IA requirements at the DoD teleports? | Answer 1d: No routers or firewalls will be necessary as there will be no remote monitoring at DoD facilities. | ||||
| 2 | PWS Section 6.2.6 | 13 of 115 | For Assured Access, PWS Section 6.2.6 lists Commercial Ka band but not Military Ka band. | Please clarify if Military Ka-band should be part of Section 6.2.6. | Yes, military Ka-band may be used if the RF terminal in question will support it. All Navy Ka-band terminals listed in Appendix I and II can support the use of military Ka-band. |
| 3 | PWS Sections 6.2.8.4.10 thru 6.2.8.4.13 | 15/16 of 115 | Regions S1, S2, S3 and S4, do not require Ku-band coverage. However, the CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule volume requires offerors to provide pricing values for Ku-band in each section. | Please clarify the intent. Is Ku-band coverage required for the Blue Water regions (S1 thru S4)? | The Navy currently has no requirements for Ku-band in regions S1, S2, S3, and S4. Pricing is necessary in the event a requirement emerges. The emergent requirement will be considered non-baseline. |
| 4 | PWS Section 6.6 M&C and WebTool | 30 of 115 | The M&C polling frequency requirement has been changed from every 5 seconds to every 5 minutes in all areas of PWS 6.6 except for the polling of modem information located in PWS 6.6.3.3 Fault Performance & Availability Data, which still requires a 5 second polling interval. | Was this an oversight while updating the Final RFP requirements, or is it the intention of the government to have 2 different polling interval standards? | PWS 6.6.3.3 should read "...once every 5 minutes…" vice 5 seconds. The Government has updated the PWS to reflect this change. |
| 5 | PWS Section 6.3, Subtask 3 CT Support Services | 18 of 115 | PWS 6.3.3.9 is mislabeled as 6.6.6.10 | Adjust for accurate numbering sequence. | PWS 6.6.6.10 should read 6.3.3.10. The Government has updated the PWS to reflect this change. |
| 6 | 13. GFE/GFI | 41 of 115 | There are no modem types listed for NSLC-Airborne Ku-band, NSCL-Airborne Ka-band, and UAV1 Ku-band terminal. These modem types are also not listed as GFE. Modem types are needed to determine costs, to determine the optimum solution, and meeting other aspects of the RFP such as monitoring data, utilization, etc. | Will the Government be providing these modems as GFE for installation in the Contractor Teleport (CT) ? | For the purposes of this RFP the contractor shall use the SLM-5650A modem for NSLC-A BW calculations. NSLC-A modems for the CTs will be GFE. |
| 13.1 GFE to be provided as follows | 42 of 115 | ||||
| Section J - RFP Attachments; Attachment 6 - RF Terminal Specifications | Att 6 Excel | ||||
| 7 | PWS Section 6.2.2 - Required Space Segment Quality | 11 of 115 | 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. Are link budgets only required for terminal and modem data rate combinations listed in Appendix II? For example, in C-band tab, Region S1, requires WSC-8 with 3 x 4.096 Mbps and link budget is required. However, Region S1, C-band also lists AFTAC (ANWSC-6(V)9C & SEATEL) with no modem data rates, and therefore, link budget is not required. | Please clarify the link budget requirements for 6.2.2. | The Government has updated Appendix II Bandwidth Estimate table. |
| 8 | PWS Section 6.2.8 - Satellite Coverage | 13 of 115 | 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.” Are link budgets required for every Region and Frequency band combination required in 6.2.8? Are link budgets required for every frequency-capable terminal and modem in Appendix I, for every frequency band and modem data rate specified in Appendix II? | Please clarify the link budget requirements for 6.2.8. | Link budgets are only required for the terminals and regions listed in Appendix II. |
| 9 | PWS Section 6.2.2 - Required Space Segment Quality | 11 of 115 | “Link budgets shall be submitted with the technical proposal for all modem data rates requested in Appendix II – CSSC Bandwidth Estimates.” | Given the reduced page count, where does the government expect the Prime bidder to provide their link budget files? Should the bidder create an Appendix to Volume II, and if so, does this appendices count towards page count? | In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1 "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." The link budget pages will not be counted. |
| 10 | PWS Section 6.1.3.1 | 10 of 115 | PWS 6.1.3.1 occurs twice in the RFP, while PWS 6.1.3.3 is not included in the numbering between PWS 6.1.3.2 and 6.1.3.4. | Please confirm that the second instance of PWS 6.1.3.1 should be numbered 6.1.3.3. | The second instance of 6.1.3.1 should read 6.1.3.3. The Government has updated the PWS to reflect this change. |
| 11 | PWS Section 6.2.5.1 | 12 of 115 | PWS 6.2.5.1.1 and PWS 6.2.5.1.2 occur immediately after PWS 6.2.5.2.1. | Please clarify if PWS 6.2.5.1.1 and PWS 6.2.5.1.2 are subsets of PWS 6.2.5.2.1 and should therefore be numbered 6.2.5.2.1.1 and 6.2.5.2.1.2? | The Government has updated the PWS to correct the numbering to reflect 6.2.5.2.1.1 and 6.2.5.2.1.2 |
| 12 | PWS Section 6.3.3.9 | 18 of 115 | PWS 6.6.6.10 occurs immediately after PWS 6.3.3.9. | Please confirm that PWS 6.6.6.10 should be numbered 6.3.3.10. | PWS 6.6.6.10 should read 6.3.3.10. The Government has updated the PWS to reflect this change. |
| 13 | PWS Section 6.3.6.3 | 20 of 115 | Immediately following PWS 6.3.6.3 are PWS 6.3.3.3.1 – 6.3.3.3.5. | Please confirm that PWS 6.3.3.3.1 – 6.3.3.3.5 should be numbered 6.3.6.3.1 – 6.3.6.3.5. | The Government has updated the PWS numbering to reflect 6.3.6.3.1 - 6.3.6.3.4 |
| 14 | Section J - RFP Attachments; Attachment 6 - RF Terminal Specifications | Att 6 Excel | There are no modem types listed for NSLC-Airborne Ku-band, NSCL-Airborne Ka-band, and UAV1 Ku-band terminal types. Modem types are needed to determine threshold Eb/No(@BER) requirements, conduct link budgets, optimize links and availability (Ao), and determine power and bandwidth. | Question 14a: Will the Government provide specific modem types for NSLC-Airborne Ku-band, NSCL-Airborne Ka-band, and UAV1 Ku-band terminal types? | Answer 14a: For the purposes of this RFP the contractor shall use the SLM-5650A modem for NSLC-A and UAV1 BW calculations. |
| Question 14b: Are there any modulation, FEC or waveform limitations for these modem or terminal types? | Answer 14b: For the purposes of this RFP assume that there are no limitations. | ||||
| 15 | Section J - RFP Attachments; Attachment 6 - RF Terminal Specifications | Att 6 Excel | There are no modem threshold Eb/No (BER) values listed for any of the modem types. Modem threshold Eb/No values are needed to conduct link budgets, optimize links and availability (Ao), and determine power and bandwidth. Modem threshold Eb/No values can vary depending on whether modem manufacturer "typical" or "guaranteed "values are used and the version(s) of modem specification data sheets that are available and used. | To ensure consistency will the Government provide modem threshold Eb/No values for the modulation, FEC and coding capabilities of each modem? This is typical done in many Government Task Orders. | Eb/No thresholds shall be determined by the contractor in order to meet the performance requirements of section 6. |
| 16 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | Commercial Ka-Band tab, included SSV and UAV1 terminals that are for Ku-Band only. It includes UAV-2 that are for Military frequency only. | Clarify the terminals to be used on the Commercial Ka-Band requirement. SSV and UAV1 are for Ku-band only. UAV-2 is for military Ka-band. | The Government has updated Appendix II Bandwidth Estimate table. |
| 17 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | Military Ka-Band tab, included SSV, UAV1, and NSLC-A terminals that are for Ku-Band only. | Clarify the terminals to be used on the Military Ka-Band requirement. SSV, UAV1 and NSLC-A are for Ku-band only | The Government has updated Appendix II Bandwidth Estimate table. |
| 18 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | Bandwidth estimates for Ka-band, and particularly Military Ka-Band have increased since the DRFP. Certain regions have more than one option for Ka coverage, while others are more constrained. In some cases, only narrow spots are available, not complete regional coverage. To take control of steerable spots, a significant bandwidth commitment is required. | Question 18a: There appear to be significant errors in the terminal requirements for the AVs. Are the baseline and non-baseline, commercial and military Ka-Band requirements complete and accurate as enumerated in the Appendix II version released with the final RFP? | Answer 18a and 18b: The Government has updated Appendix II Bandwidth Estimate table. Numbers provided are only estimates. |
| Question 18b: What assumptions are made by the government regarding military Ka coverage within regions such as WP and H? | |||||
| 19 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | FY15 starts on Oct 1 2014. Award date is in Oct 2015. | Do all the BW Estimate tables and CLINS really need to specify FY16 as the start year? | FY16 start date is notional as the award date is an estimate. |
| 20 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | Question 20a: For X-band and Ka-band clarify if the inbound and outbound carriers for the UAV-2 terminal are symmetrical vs asymmetrical. | Answer 20a: The carriers are correct as shown in Appendix II. The inbound and outbound carriers for the UAV2 are symmetrical. | |
| Question 20b: For the UAV-2 transit carrier clarify if it is a duplex link and if so if it is symmetrical | Answer 20b: The UAV2 transit carriers are also symmetrical. | ||||
| 21 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Estimates | App II Excel | Commercial Ka-Band estimates for SSV terminals in Regions S1-S4 show an estimated data rate of 2x1.544, then show an estimated MHz amount of 2x3 instead of the total estimated as per all other sections. Also, this estimated MHz is not calculated into the overall aggregate MHz estimate within each of the cells, only the UAV links have been included. | Question 21a: Based on calculations provided in separate cells showing the SSV to require 3 MHz for every 1x1.544 link, should each of the cells requiring Commercial Ka actually show 6 MHz (2x1.544)? | Answer 21a and 21b: The Government has updated Appendix II Bandwidth Estimate table. |
| Question 21b: Was there a reason the government did not include the SSV bandwidth MHz estimates into the overall Regional estimates per FY, or was this an oversight, and the additional 6 MHz of estimated bandwidth should be included in the overall aggregate? | |||||
| 22 | Appendix II - CSSC Bandwidth Esimates | App II Excel | Ku-Band tab, Column A, Regions A, AF,AG, E, G, H, NA list NSLC-A (INBOUND) and NSLC (OUTBOUND). | Question 22a: Does "INBOUND" refer to the link FROM the CT TO NSLC-A, and if so please confirm that the "MODEM DATA RATE (Mbps)" listed are correct. | Answer 22a and 22b: Inbound and Outbound are relative to the CT terminal. |
| Question 22b: Does "OUTBOUND" refer to the link from the NSLC-A TO the CT , and if so please confirm that the "MODEM DATA RATE (Mbps) listed are correct. | |||||
| 23 | DD254 Access Requirements | Att 3 PDF | Para 11.A states contract performance is restricted to NCTAMS LANT, NCTAMS PAC and NCTS Bahrain. However, the PWS Appendix III and CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule volume both list NCTAMS EURCENT in Naples Italy as a Navy Designated Points of Presence (NDP). | Request clarification of the DD254. | The Government is currently revising the DD254 and it will be included in a subsequent amendment. |
| 24 | Section J, Attachment 1 - CSSC Section B Pricing Schedule | Att 1 | Region A, Cell E530 - This cell appears to be locked and will not allow data to be entered. | Could the government please review “ATTACHMENT_1_-_CSSC_Section_B_Pricing_Schedule” tab “Region A” cell “E530”? | The Government has updated Attachment 1, cell E530 for Region A to allow data to be entered. All other cells in the attachment were also reviewed to ensure offerors could submit the necessary data. |
| 25 | Appendix I - RF Terminal Specs | App I | Please verify the FLV (AN/USC69(v)2) G/T at Ku-Band. The RFP version of the appendix had 19.4 dB/K; we believe it should be 24.6 dB/K based on the size of the terminal. | The correct G/T value for the AN/USC-69(V)2 FLV terminal is 24.6 dB/K. The Government has updated Appendix I, cell D20 to reflect this update. | |
| 26 | Section B Pricing Schedule | Att 1 | Non-Bandwidth Portions provides a CLIN titled HNA/FC (PWS 6.9.1). The cost for frequency clearance and host nation agreements are dependent on Government end user terminal types, locations, frequencies, BW amount on lease, etc. Most other contracts cover the HNA / FC costs on a case-by-case basis, and HNA pricing is a pass-thru based on costs. | ||
| Please provide the all Government end user information for each year of the contract so offerors can provide the firm-fixed price on the HNAs. |
Include:
• Terminal type and number
• Location
• Specific frequency
• Estimated BW amounts and thru-puts
| • Period of performance | The Government has updated Attachment 1 to delete the requirement to include pricing for HNAs. The necessary information will be provided when the Government places an order that requires HNA. In addition, the Government has added instructions that HNAs will be ordered as pass-through charges, as needed by the Government. | |||||
| 27 | Section J - RFP Attachments; Attachment 6 - RF Terminal Specifications | Att 6 Excel | G/T of 19.4 dB/K for the AN/USC-69(V)2 is low. For a FLV the G/T is 24.6 dB/K | Clarify the G/T for the AN/USC-69(V)2 terminal | The correct G/T value for the AN/USC-69(V)2 FLV terminal is 24.6 dB/K. Please note - Attachment 6 and Appendix I were the same document. To reduce confusion, the Government has removed Attachment 6 and has updated Appendix I to reflect the correct G/T value. | |
| 28 | Appendix I - RF Terminal Specs | App I | Please verify the ULV (AN/USC69(v)3) EIRP at Ku-Band. The RFP version of the appendix had 71.39 dBw; we believe it should be 58 dBw from previous experience with this terminal. | The correct EIRP at Ku-Band for the AN/USC-69(V)3 ULV terminal is 58.8dBW. The Government has updated Appendix I, cell C21 to reflect this update. | ||
| 29 | Attachment 9 - Cross Reference Matrix | Attachment 9, page 1, paragraph (2) states: “(2) 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. The offeror shall provide a cross reference matrix indicating, by RFP PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.” However, the cross reference matrix at Attachment 9 does not include CLIN numbers, only RFP (Section L and Section M) and PWS references. | Please clarify if offerors should add a column to the cross reference matrix to provide CLIN numbers? | The Government has updated the Cross Reference Matrix. | ||
| 30 | Attachment 9 - Cross Reference Matrix | The cross reference matrix in Attachment 9, page 2 includes rows for: | Question 30a: Please clarify where in their proposal offerors should include information on Power Management Plan (PWS 6.3.3.4) or Stratum 1 clock source (PWS 6.3.3.9)? | Answer 30a: The Government has updated the Cross Reference Matrix. | ||
| 6.3.3.4 Power Management Plan 4.2.2.3 M002b(3) | ||||||
| 6.3.3.9 Stratum 1 clock source 4.2.2.3 M002b(3) | ||||||
| However, RFP L.4.2.2.3 does not include any instructions related to Power Management Plan (PWS 6.3.3.4) or Stratum 1 clock source (PWS 6.3.3.9). Additionally, RFP M002b(3) does not include any evaluation criteria related to Power Management Plan (PWS 6.3.3.4) or Stratum 1 clock source (PWS 6.3.3.9). | Question 30b: Please clarify how offerors will be evaluated on Power Management Plan (PWS 6.3.3.4) or Stratum 1 clock source (PWS 6.3.3.9)? | Answer 30b: Please see Section M for evaluation criteria. | ||||
| 31 | Section L 2.2.2 Page Size and Format (2.2.2.1) | 99 of 115 | Page count for Volume II has been increased to 100 pages, but the spacing is still set at 1.5, which decreases the usable space available. Given the increased scope and complexity associated with the new and expanded Commercial and Military Ka requirements, additional footprint graphics and charts will need to be incorporated, requiring additional space to ensure adequate justification is provided by offerors | Recommend changing the spacing requirement to single space, along with the font size requirement to 11pt instead of 12pt. | The Government has revised Section L to allow for single spacing and 11 pt fonts. | |
| 32 | Section L 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | 98 of 115 | Total copies required for each individual Volume is as follows: 1 paper copy and 1 electronic version. However, later in Section L there is a requirement to mark one of your submissions as "Original Copy". Given that there is only a requirement to submit 1 paper copy of each volume, wouldn't that be considered the "Original Copy"? | Is the government actually looking for 2 paper copies, where the first is marked Original and the second is marked as copy? | There is only one paper copy required and It should be marked "Original Copy" | |
| 33 | Section L 4.2.2 Volume Organization | 101 of 115 | The order within Volume II seems to be misaligned, with the List of Exhibits, Glossary and CRM all located after the actual narrative for Factors 1 and 3. | Does the government intend to place the quick reference material for Volume II after the narrative submission, or would it make more sense to place it in the beginning? | The Government has revised Section L to change the order of the volume organization to request offerors to place the quick reference material before the narrative information. | |
| 34 | Section L.2.0 (d) General Instructions | 98 of 115 | The sections states the following, "The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date." However the validity period is not listed in section A | Please provided the validity period. | The Government has revised section L to reference acceptance period is specified in section L paragraph 6.3 instead of in Section A. | |
| 35 | Section L 7.2.4.1 Small Business Participation and Commitment | 105 of 115 | We and likely most Contractors will satisfy the FAR requirement for an “Acceptable” Small Business Subcontracting Plan. However, given the last portion of the criterion (1) in Section M002 Evaluation Factors, paragraph g. Subcontracting Plan: ”. . . and other items required by Section L”; providing a Plan that meets the designated subcontracting levels is unrealistic for the services and associated standard operating procedures that DISA is requesting. Over 90% of the total contract value will consist of space segment, teleport, and global terrestrial services that are available only from large companies. Contractors likely will purchase most of the services on a Purchase Order basis associated with a Government Task Order and not use subcontracts. The normal state of providing end-to-end commercial satellite circuits makes achieving the designated goals impossible without resorting to artifices that essentially violate the FAR and/or unnecessarily increase the costs to the Government. | We request that the Government revise the subcontracting levels to percentages that reflect the realism of procuring the services being requested. | The Government understands the difficulty offerors will have meeting the established DISA small business goals. However the Government maintains the Section L DISA goals are targets for small business participation and are not described as requirements for offerors to meet. The Government removed the following comment from Section L. "Note: The above small business participation targets represent the Government’s assessment of appropriate minimums expressed as a percentage of total contract value." To provide clarity. | |
| 36 | Section L 4.2.1 Technical/Management | 101 of 115 | Section L of the solicitation 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. | We presume that the subfactors referenced are those specified in Sections L and M: Subfactor 1 - Space Segment Requirements, Subfactor 2 - End-to-End Design Solution, Subfactor 3 - Terrestrial Services Requirements. Please confirm or clarify that our presumption regarding subfactors is correct. | The subfactors referenced are those specified in Sections L and M: Subfactor 1 - Space Segment Requirements, Subfactor 2 - End-to-End Design, and Subfactor 3 - Terrestrial Services Requirements. | |
| 37 | Section L 5.2 - Relevant Contracts | 102 of 115 | Question 37a: Is it acceptable for a Prime bidder to submit past performance references for contracts in which they were a subcontractor, given that the scope of support aligns with the CSSC size, scope and complexity relevancy? If so, would the Prime bidder submit the PPQ to the Prime contractor organization, or directly to the Government POC in which the actual Prime is supporting? | Answer 37a: Section L, paragraph 5.2 states: "Submit information IAW Attachment 4: Past Performance Information on no more than five recent (active within the past 5 years from the date of this solicitation) contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort." It is up to the offeror to determine which past performance they believe fits this requirement. | ||
| Question 37b: If so, would the Prime bidder submit the PPQ to the Prime contractor organization, or directly to the Government POC in which the actual Prime is supporting? | Answer 37b: Send Past Performance questionnaires to the Government POC only. | |||||
| 38 | Section M | The fact that Section M specifically calls out particular sections of the PWS and nowhere states that Contractors must address the entire PWS begs the question is to whether offerors should write to sections in the PWS not called out in Sections L and M. The current wording also raises an issue subject to protest as to whether the Government will or can evaluate offerors beyond the specified sections. | We have had solicitations in which the Government requested that Contractors state that they would satisfy all the requirements, terms, and conditions and only asked offerors to provide detailed responses to specific sections. Please advise/clarify whether the Government wants Contractors to address the entire PWS or restrict our response to the sections specified Sections L and M. | 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, M0003 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. | ||
| 39 | Section M, M003 | 115 of 115 | This section 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.” However, RFP L.4.2.2 specifically lists only PWS Appendix II, Section 6.2.2, Section 6.2.5.1, Section 6.1.1, Section 6.3.2, Section 6.3.5, and Paragraph 6.12. Additionally, RFP M002.b only lists these same specific PWS sections. | Please confirm that proposals are only required to include detailed technical approaches for the specific PWS sections listed in RFP L.4.4.2 and M002.b, and that offerors are NOT required to provide detailed technical approaches for ALL requirements in the PWS. | 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. | |
| 40 | Official CSSC Contract Award Date | In order to reserve bandwidth amounts, offerors need estimated task order award date. | Request the estimated award date of service? | Anticipated award date is September 2015, however, due to the complexity of this requirement, the anticipated award date is subject to change. In addition, the anticipated award date of subsequent task orders for the bandwidth cannot be accurately predicted. | ||
| 41 | Current Contract | I wanted to know who was the incumbent who currently holds the contract. | The incumbent is Intelsat General Corporation. | |||
| 42 | How will the government weight a providers ability to delivery Baseline vs. Non-Baseline bandwidth requirements? Is there higher weight associated with delivering Baseline capacity which has a higher likelihood of being provisioned by the Navy vs. Non-Baseline Surge requirements which are not guaranteed to be procured? | The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Section M of the RFP. In accordance with Section M, Subfactor 1 - Space Segment Requirements "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"
| 43 | Given that the Final RFP package released to industry contained multiple discrepancies throughout Appendix I (no SSV terminal identified by included in Appendix II) and Appendix II (allocation of baseline and non-baseline capacity to terminals without capability required (i.e., Comm/Mil Ka terminals)), and given the fact that accurate government estimates are required in order to develop a compliant design solution, coupled with the fact that 1 week has already passed by within the response timeframe, is the government planning on releasing these updates any time soon, or is the government already planning to provide an amendment for extension? Given the significant change in both bandwidth requirements and evaluation subfactors from any and all previous RFI/SB Sources Sought/DRFP provided over the past 6 months, the governments expedited clarification would be greatly appreciated. | At this time the Government does not anticipate extending the proposal due date. | |||
| 44 | When can industry expect to receive these critical updates and is the government looking to provide an extension of at least 2 weeks to mitigate the inaccuracies provided in the Final RFP package? | The Government will provide answers to the RFP questions as they become available. Industry should continue to monitor FBO as all answers and changes to the RFP will be posted as soon as possible. At this time the Government does not anticipate extending the proposal due date. | |||
| 45 | Section L 7.0 - Volume V - Contract Documentation | 104 of 115 | 7.1 states that the offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Standard Form 1449 and Sections A-K. Some of the attachments in Section J are merely templates for use during the performance of the contract (i.e., EMI/RFI checklist) and some are required to be included in other volumes of the proposal (i.e., IA Checklist needs to be included within Volume II to be evaluated under Factor 3 IA). | Please advise the offerors of exactly which of these attachments are required to be included within the contracts volume 7.0 within, Sections A-K. Also if they are referenced as an evaluation criteria in another volume of the proposal should they also be included in those volumes or just in the contracts section or both. | The Government has updated Section L, paragraph 7.1 to include section A-J. |
| 46 | Section L 2.2.1 and 5.1 | 99/102 of 115 | 2.2.1 states: “Pages shall be typed with 1 1/2 line spacing.” However, RFP 5.1 states: “Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing past performance information IAW the format contained in Attachment 4 of the RFP.” Attachment 4 of the RFP is single spaced. | Please clarify if offerors should submit past performances with 1 1/2 line spacing, or if past performance information should be single spaced. | The Government has updated Section L to allow for single spacing. |
| 47 | Section L 5.1 | 102 of 115 | 5.1 states: “Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing past performance information IAW the format contained in Attachment 4 of the RFP.” Attachment 4 of the RFP is single spaced. However, RFP 5.2.1 states: “Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts, as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.” Attachment 4 does not include an area designated for information regarding efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts, as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. | Please clarify where exactly within the past performance format offerors must provide information regarding their efforts accomplished to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts, as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. | Please ensure all information the offeror wants the Government to consider concerning thir past performance be included in Volume III |
| 48 | Section L 4.2.2 | 101 of 115 | L.4.2.2 provided instructions regarding Volume Organization for Volume II – Technical/Management. However, there are no instructions regarding Volume Organization for Volume III – Past Performance within RFP L.5. | Please clarify how Volume III – Past Performance must be organized? For example, where in the volume should offerors provide Consent Letters and Organizational Structure Change History? | Please ensure all information the offeror wants the Government to consider concerning thir past performance be included in Volume III |
| 49 | Section L 4.2.2.1 | 101 of 115 | 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.” Additionally, RFP L.2.2 (Table 2.1) states that the page limit for Volume III – Past Performance is 25 pages. | Question49a: Please clarify if Consent Letters and Organizational Structure Change History count toward the 25 page limit of Volume III –Past Performance. | Answer 49a: All information contained in Volume III will count towards the page limit. |
| Question 49b: Please confirm if offerors may provide summary/introductory information within Volume III – Past Performance, which would not be counted toward the 25 page limit. | Answer 49b: All information contained in Volume III will be counted towards the page count. Only information that is requested in Section L and M should be contained in Volume III | ||||
| 50 | PWS Section 6.2.5 - Satellite Link Availability | 13 of 115 | "The contractor shall include in each proposed satellite a Satellite Availability Report covering the previous 30 calendar days, the previous year, and the lifetime of the satellite." | Given the reduced page count, where does the government expect the Prime bidder to provide their satellite availability reports? Should the bidder create an Appendix to Volume II, and if so, does this appendices count towards page count? | Please ensure satellite availability reports are included in Volume II. The Government has updated Section L to clarify that the satellite availability reports are not included in the page count. |
| 51 | Section L 4.2.1 - Technical/Management | 101 of 115 | This section 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.” However, RFP L.4.2.2 does not indicate an area in the proposal’s organization to include such information relate to risks. | Please clarify where offerors should describe the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule. | All information addressing the offerors technical/management proposal shall be contained in Volume II. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .