ULAD Question and Answers
94 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ultra Light Aircraft Detection (ULAD)
- Solicitation number
- HSBP1010R0074
Text of this file
Sheet1 (2)
| Paragraph number | Question or Comment | Answers |
| B.1, CLIN 0003, page 6 | “The Contractor shall deliver… one (1) to a maximum of (50) units…” This does not seem to agree with the CLIN 0003 in the table on page 5. How do these relate to one another? | This information has been retracted and replaced with updated CLIN information. |
| B.1, CLIN 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 | Same question as above for “(6 through 10 units)” | See answer to Question # 1 |
| B.1 page 11 | What are the periods of performance for the Options 1 to 4? | Be for 1 year each option period should government elect to exercise. |
| C.1, 4.3, page 13, and Attachment #1 Factor 1-3 | “…at least five (25) targets…” What is the correct number of targets? Attachment #1 also says “25” | Should be 25 simultaneous. |
| C.1, 6.0 Applicable Documents | Attachment numbering does not agree with attachments – “Attachment 2” should be “Attachment 1”, and no “CBP Training and Development Standards” were attached to the draft RFP | Attachment number is correct. Attachment 4, 5, & 6 were not posted with Draft RFP. |
| L.12, B. Vol II – Cost/Price Proposal | Will there be more specific instructions on the cost section, such as provide cost estimates for each CLIN? | Yes |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Since only a radar signature is cited, does this imply that there is no appreciable IR or acoustic signature from the ultra-light in some or all of its flight modes? Please clarify | No, we have no IR signature information to provide |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Are there required track accuracies and resolutions in all three dimensions and velocity? Please clarify | No requirement for track accuracy or velocity |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Is there a required maximum false track rate? Please clarify | No requirement, this will be developed from first unit field testing and operational testing |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | The objective velocities imply some overlap with General Aviation Aircraft (GAA) and UASs, is it desired or required to have an integrated Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) with Mode C, Mode 2 decode available to aid in differentiation? Please clarify | Nice but not necessary. |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-2 | Is the data required to be recorded directly at the radar for Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) evidentiary reasons with a requirement for data integrity? Please clarify | Data recorded at the AMOCC |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 2-3 | Factor 2-3 states that the systems will be transported using existing CBP vehicles. What vehicles, make and model will be used for transporting the system? Please clarify | Vendor should specify |
| Page 63, paragraph L-12 | This paragraph states that “The request for proposal is due on August 16, 2010 at 3:30 PM EST. Please clarify | Disregard due date of August 16, 2010. RFP due date will be in actual RFP solicitation. |
| Paragraph number | Question/Comment | |
| None | Will the final RFP be written to consider Passive Acoustic Sensor Detection System for detecting and tracking Ultra Light Aircraft? | Written to consider all effective means |
| None | Are the detection assets to be distributed by regions? Can the quantity, size of the regions and locations be provided? | No. Solutions will be required to cover all regions |
| None | Would there be a requirement to network regional assets into a centralized regional facility or mobile center? | All data returned to the AMOCC through land line or satellite link. |
| Page 5, Paragraph B. 1 | Will the CBP exercise multiple CLINS for the units simultaneously during the base period and/or the option periods? (Example: exercise CLIN 0003A , CLIN 0003B and CLIN 0003E at the same time) | Possible, the number of CLIN's exercised will be dependent on the Government's need. |
| None | Will there be a requirement to network regional assets into a centralized regional facility or mobile center? | Answered |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | What type of communications assets are in place at the existing CBP facilities? | Satcom as currently employed by AMOCC |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | What type of communications assets are envisioned when the units are remotely deployed? | Satcom as currently employed by AMOCC |
| None | Can you provide a network diagram for the principle nodes along with the node functionality description? | Not at this time |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | Does the CBP have re-fuelers to replenish fuel at the sites for the generators of the remotely deployed units? | Yes- that is the plan. |
| None | Would the capability to control the CBP UAV assets add to system capability if this was inherent at no additional cost? | Not at this time. |
| None | Are the operating areas of the CBP UAV's somewhat fixed or normal? If so what is the size of the operating area in sq kilometers? | This is operationally sensitive information. |
| None | Are you able and willing to receive DoD classified material? | No. Solutions will be required to cover all regions |
| Performance objectives 4.1 | Given that this is a low/slow flying aircraft detection problem would consideration be given to reducing threshold altitude to 5,000 MSL? Technically, this is a clean breakpoint between ‘low flying’ and more normal altitudes which are picked up by conve | No |
| Performance objectives 4.2 | What consideration has been given to non line of sight scenarios particularly with respect to range/gaps in coverage? | None |
| Performance objectives 4.2 | Wouldn’t a minimum detection range less than 1km be more appropriate particularly in rugged non line of sight terrain? The requirements matrix shows a height of 33 ft. We assume this is the correct minimum range. Has consideration been given to line | |
| Performance objectives 4.3 | Is the requirement 5 or 25 simultaneous targets? See typo. What operational scenarios support this requirement? | 25 is correct. Has to do with commercial aircraft in the target area. |
| Performance objectives 4.3 | Are the 5 targets identical? What is their spacing in the sky? | Not necessarily. |
| Performance objectives 4.4 | What method of transport is envisioned? Is this transit case in back of agent truck? More MSS like integrated vehicle? Any requirement for hand carry? Is that desirable? | Transit case, 2-man carry envisioned but not required. |
| N/A | Since Section M is missing, can you provide the evaluation criteria and ranking? | Section M will be provided with release of the actual RFP. |
| Pg 5, B.1 | For the Volume Discount for Base Period 1 in the table, please clarify if the quantities should be 6 through 10 instead of 2 through 5. | See answer to question # 1. |
| pg 12, 3.0, 3rd para | What is considered "real time" data transfer to the AMOC? How much latency is acceptable? Also, how much latency is acceptable in regard to remote control of sensors? | Consideration will be given for low latency in both cases. |
| pg 12, 3.0, 3rd para | There is no appendix A. Do you mean attachement 3? | Yes, wording will be corrected. |
| pg 47, J.1 | Attachments 4, 5, & 6 were not provided with the draft rfp and will be needed to respond to a final rfp. Please provide. | See answer to question # 8. |
| pg 63, L.12 | Paragraph 1 says to submit 8 hard copies and 2 CDs. Paragraph 3 says to electronically submit to the e‐mail address listed. Please clarify submission requirements (i.e. one or the other or both). | Inconsistency noted, actual RFP will clarify submission requirements. |
| pg 64, L.12, A | Does the Transmittal Letter (Section 1) count towards the 50pg limit of the Technical Volume. | See answer to question # 46. |
| pg 64, L.12, A | Does the PWS (Section 4) count towards the 50pg limit of the technical volume | See answer to question # 46. |
| pg 65, L.12, B | Paragaph 1 says to submit "five (8)" hard copies. Please clarify the number of Cost Proposals to be submitted. | See answer to question # 46. |
| Attachment 1 | Does the table contain all KPPs for the system or are there more? If there are more, please provide. | All are contained. |
| Attachment 1 | Several of these requirements are not technical or performance related. Is this matrix to be interpreted as the technical/performance requirements for the system or as the evaluation criteria for the proposal? Please cla | Evaluation criteria. |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐3 | Please specify an objective value for the number of simultaneous tracks. | 25 |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐4 | Please specify an objective value for operational temperature range. | minus 40 to plus 125F |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐5 | Does the objective value of "None" mean that the data must be AMOSS compatible for both the threshold and objective cases. | Yes |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐6 | Please specify an objective capability for remote control. | on/off, pointing |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐1 | Should the threshold Ao be 75%, as described in CLIN 0008, Case A on page 9 of the RFP? | Wll be revised in RFP. |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐1 | Please specify a value for the objective deployment time. | Three hours |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐2 | Does the objective value of "None" mean that the 96 hours of continuous operation applies to both the threshold and objective cases? | yes |
| Attachment 2, pg 1 | Where can we obtain the DHS/CBP Enterprise Architecture and Technical Reference Models, as referenced in Attachment 2? | These documents will be provided to the successful vendor upon award. |
| Attachment 2, pg 1 | Where is the HSAR clause incorporated into the SOO and which CLIN(s) does the scope described flow into? | Clause is referenced in Section I and relative to CLIN 0010. |
| General | Is there GFE contemplated for this program? If so, please provide the GFE list. | No, other than satellite channels and integration into the AMOSS |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0003, p. 5-6 | The CLIN 0003 Description states that the contractor shall deliver one (1) to a maximum of fifty (50) units based on volume discounts selected by the Government. The CLIN structure as outlined on the table on Page 5 does not reflect up to Qty 50. The maxi | See answer to question # 1. |
| Please clarify the table on Page 5. Our recommendation is to increase quantities to allow for maximum volume discounts | See answer to question # 1. | |
| Draft RFP, B.1, p. 5 | Please specify the Option Period schedule as described in Schedule of Supplies/Services Table. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Is the Executive Summary in Section 2 the same Executive Summary called out under Section 3 for Volume I, Technical? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Please clarify the number and placement of Executive Summaries required for Volume 1, Technical. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 65 | Is Section 6 included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Is the Transmittal letter included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Are the Table of Contents, Table of Figures, and Table of Tables included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Draft RFP, E.4 & E.5, p. 15 | Please clarify the following: “Every ULAD, with exception of the first unit shall be subject to FAT.” | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. |
| Please consider First Article Test (FAT) for first unit testing and Production Acceptance Test (PAT) for all follow-on units after FAT. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0004, p. 7 | CLIN 0004, Train the Trainer Course states: “The vendor shall use the CBP Training Development Standards October 2008 for development of the T3 Course.” | Will be provided with actual RFP. |
| Please provide the standard needed for training material development. | ||
| Draft RFP, B, p. 7 | Are the items listed in the ILSP all CDRLs? Please consider updating the CDRL Table to include required items. | Yes |
| Draft RFP, H, H.3, p. 24 | The Draft RFP states: “This contract requires access to classified national security information up to the level.” However, the security level is not provided. What is the highest security level required to perform this contract? | Law enforcement sensitive |
| Draft RFP, C, 3.0, p. 12 | The Government states the system must be transportable. Please provide a description of the transportability requirements and the vehicles to be used for transport. | Contractor is free to describe this requirement |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0002, p. 6 | CLIN 0002 reads that the system will be priced after successful FAT completion. Did the Government intend this to mean delivery of the unit? It is assumed the system price will be established for the individual unit at proposal/award. Please clarify. | See answer to question # 1. |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0006, p. 7 | CLIN 0006 Product Drawing Package. The paragraph reads that the goal of the drawing package is to provide adequate system level logistics support. It then reads that the drawings will be used to provide technical data for competitive procurement of spares | Paragraph will be revised. Government does not intend competitive procurement of spares. |
| Recommend either the OEM provide spares OR the Government along with the OEM work together to determine the spares to be competitively procured | See answer for question # 83. | |
| Draft RFP, E.5, p. 15 | States “The Vendor shall price FAT support labor under CLIN 0008 and Travel under CLIN 009. If requested by the Government, Vendor support costs for subject matter expertise shall be billed under CLIN 0008 (Vendor Technical Support).” CLIN 0009 is for Ven | Paragraph will be revised. |
| Please clarify where FAT support and travel for FAT support should be priced. | Revised RFP will stipulate. | |
| Draft RFP, F.8, p. 18 | CLIN 0002 states that the Individual Unit will be delivered with the FAT Unit. Section B CLIN 0002 (Page 6) states that the Individual Unit will be delivered with modifications recommended from completion of FAT. | Paragraph will be revised. |
| Please clarify the delivery date of the Individual Unit under CLIN 0002. | Delivery date TBD after contract award. | |
| Draft RFP, CLIN 0010, p. 10 | For the communication unit, does the communications service plan need to be priced in the proposal or can we propose a communication unit that will operate on an existing CBP service plan? If separate pricing is required, what is the required period of se | No, that is govt. furnished. |
| Draft RFP, C, 4.5, p. 13 | What is the preferred fuel type for the power generation unit? | No preference |
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0001, p. 6 | Will CBP provide fuel for the power generation unit during FAT? | Yes |
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0001, p. 6 | Will CBP provide all required test aircraft during FAT? | Yes |
| Attachment 1, 2-6, p. N/A | The capabilities matrix specifies a 3 hr threshold setup time and 30 min objective. The remarks identify “setup by one person.” Is the remark noted for one person a threshold or objective capability? Additionally, please clarify the rationale for requirin | Both threshold and objective. Transport and assemble may require two persons, operating only one. |
| Attachment 1, 4-2, p. N/A | Lifecycle cost is identified as a requirement, but not called out in the ILSP as a development item, nor is there an applicable CDRL. Please clarify. | This should be called out in a CDRL |
| Attachment 1,1-1, p. N/A | (Velocity) Is 24 knots the minimal radial velocity of the Ultra Light Aircraft to the sensor, or the aircraft velocity? | Aircraft velocity. |
| Attachment 1, 1-4, p. N/A | Is sensor performance degradation acceptable in inclement weather (rain, dust storm, etc.)? To what level? | Yes, contractor should specify. |
| Attachment 1, 2-4, p. N/A | The threshold capability states that the system shall be safe to operator and maintain with less than 100W/m2 RF energy at 1m or greater. Should this be 1m or less? | Yes |
| Is there a peak power limitation to ensure safe operation? | No | |
| Attachment 1, p. N/A | What are the Probability of Detection, Probability of False Alarm, and Swerling Model Type for the maximum detection range of the specified 1m2 (0.5m2) radar cross section target? | Unknown. Target is generic. --- RCS requirement is a best estimate. Probability of detection at max range is system dependent. There are no requirements on Probability of False Alarm; the AMOC will identify the type of target. |
| Please provide specific parameters so that sensor performance can be consistently characterized. | Unknown. Target is generic | |
| Attachment 2, p. 1 | The first paragraph states: “The Offeror shall ensure that the design conforms to the DHS and CBP enterprise architecture (EA), the DHS and CBP technical reference models (TRM), and all DHS and CBP policies and guidelines as promulgated by the DHS and CBP | These documents will be provided to the successful vendor upon award. |
| Please provide documentation on the DHS and CBP EAs, including the currently released versions of the TRMs for both, and the "DHS Service Oriented Architecture - Technical Framework." | These documents will be provided to the successful vendor upon award. | |
| SOO 1.0 | The stated intent is to acquire a system to detect and track slow, low, and low radar cross section aircraft flying across US borders. Will a system of systems approach to improve probability of detection be more favorably considered? | Consideration is performanced based |
| SOO 1.0 & 2.0 | Is it true that these systems will be deployed to monitor segments of the border for intruding aircraft, and relocated at will, but will not monitor the entire border simultaneously? | Yes |
| SOO 4.0 | There is no mention of a probability of detection requirement for the system. Is there one, and if so what is it? | None mentioned for this target set. Evaluation will be based upon vendor spec, FAT test, and Operational Tests from first option award. |
| SOO 4.0 | Because common system solutions (e.g., radar) when deployed can also be observed by adversary spotters from across the border, has any consideration been given to low profile solutions to monitor border segments not covered by common systems? | Not at this time |
| SOO 4.2 | Knowing that any line-of-sight system used in rugged and mountainous terrain will have “dead space” for aircraft flying at the lowest altitudes, what portion of the evaluation criteria will recognize non-line-of-sight solutions? | Non-line of sight solutions are acceptable |
| None | The elevation angle is critical to detecting and tracking targets when the radar is mounted on a high location, which is the typical location for an air defense radar, especially against low altitude targets. Is there a requirement to the maximum look-dow | No requirement in the RFP but those functions will be considered. |
| None | There is no specification for Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) capability. Will integrated IFF capability be evaluated if offered as an option? | IFF will be considered. |
| None | Will operating and support (O&S) costs be a factor in the ULAD proposal evaluation? | Yes |
| None | Is COTS equipment required? TRL 9? Is TRL 8 sufficient? | Components, sensor, apu, satcom, need to be TRL 9 |
| Attachment 1 | In lieu of the set of EMI/EMC standard the ULAD system is required to operate “in urban and industrial EMI environments without degradation.” in compliance with IEC 61000. Which specific requirements of IEC 61000 the ULAD system needs to comply with (cond | All requirements will be considered. All data will be considered. No ECCM. |
| Attachment 1 | Factor 1-2 Mission Element states: “ID/ Class/ Respond/ Resolve” and the description states “Provide data to AMOC.” Is there a list of parameters (data) that need to be a part of the data, transmitted to the AMOC? | No. |
| Paragraph Number | Question/Comment | |
| SOO 4.4 | What number of operators are associated with the maximum three hour pack/un-pack time? | 2 transport and set-up. |
| SOO 4.5 | When deployed to remote areas without CBP communications, what is the operator environment expected to be (unprotected, environmentally protected shelter, etc.)? | Secure, unprotected. |
| SOO 4.9 | Please define transport over rugged terrain, define the maximum load requirements (size/weight/volume), methods of transportation (type of vehicle, airlift, etc.). | Depends on contractor system design. 2-man carry of components and surface transport preferred. |
| What is the expected field of view to target object(s) of interest. Like 180 degrees field of view. | Depends on the sensor selected and its location. | |
| Page 6, Section B.1, 1st paragraph | Is DHS/CBP willing to accommodate a limited duration loan of the ULAD First Article Test asset for completion of FAT, with subsequent return to the contractor? | Yes if the duration allows for FAT. |
| None | Would DHS/CBP be willing to conduct face to face technical information discussions with the vendors prior to the release of the RFP in order to clarify requirements, exchange technical information and present proprietary information? | No |
| Page 18, Section F.8 CLIN Delivery | What is the required ARO delivery date for the first production unit? Is there a 'required delivery date' or 'no later than delivery date for the first production systems? | TBD after contract award |
| SOO Section 3.0 | Scope: The SOO states "The system will transmit real time sensor data to the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) in Riverside, CA" Is there any requirement or desire to share real time sensor data between remote units? | No |
| SOO Section 3.0 | Scope: The SOO states "The system will transmit real time sensor data to the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) in Riverside, CA" Is there any requirement for remote units to generate alarms, alerts, or reports or will this be done at the AMOC ba | No to all. |
| SOO Section 4.0 | Performance Objectives: Have any frequency bands been ruled out for sensors? | No |
| SOO Section 5.0 | Risk Mitigation: Is the risk mitigation desired for the specific sensor performance and operation or will it also include the concept of operation as well? For the remote locations, will the sensors be unattended or will they have some protection force | Risk for sensor system only, remote sensors will be attended, contractors should include their risk mitigation plan. |
| SOO Section 6.0 | Applicable Document: Can the government provide the CBP Training Development Standards referenced as Attachment 5 in this section? | Will be provided with actual RFP. |
| Section E (E.5) | ULAD First Article Test : The RFP states “The Vendor shall price FAT support labor under CLIN 0008 and Travel under CLIN 0009. If requested by the Government, Vendor support costs for subject matter expertise shall be billed under CLIN 0008 (Vendor Tec | This information has been retracted and replaced with updated CLIN information. |
| Section E (E.6) | Product Acceptance Criteria: Can the govt provide additional insight into the product acceptance criteria. A lot of the components are anticipated as being COTS equipment with the understanding that the existing components will be acceptable for use pro | Government will provide updated information in Section E. |
| Section F.9 | ULAD CDRL Delivery: Can the government provide additional insight into the CDRL deliverable content to include acceptable format for those areas not provided? | Government will provide updated information in Section F. |
| General | There presently is no section M (Evaluation Factors). Can the government provide additional insight into how they plan to evaluate the proposals? | Will be provided with actual RFP. |
| General | The website indicates that the anticipated release date of the RFP is on or about 6 August 2010 and will close 30 days thereafter. How many days does the government plan to allow until contract award? | Disregard due date of August 16, 2010. RFP due date will be in actual RFP solicitation. |
| ULAD Capabilities Matrix: Factor #1-1 | What is the envelope of altitude vs. range profiles for ULA target trajectory? | Unknown. Target is generic; 33 ft to 15,000 ft is from max range to a range dependent on radar system |
| ULAD Capabilities Matrix: Factor #1 | What are maneuverability capabilities of the ULA – turn rates, speed variations, altitude changes? | Unknown. Target is generic |
| ULAD Capabilities Matrix: Factor #1 | Is the maximum radiated power peak or average? | Average |
| Draft RFP page 6: CLIN 0003 – Volume Discount Units | How are the quantities between 6 and 50 to be bid? | See answer to question # 1. |
| Draft RFP Section C SOO: P 3.0 Scope, Scenario 1 and 2 | Does the buyer expect a single configuration for both the self contained and CBP base options? If different, we recommend that the pricing matrix be amended to reflect the configurations, the quantities required and delivery requirements for each. | Single sensor configuration that can be used in either option. |
| Draft RFP Section C SOO: P 3.0 Scope, Scenario 1 and 2 | If a self contained system is required, please define the minimum requirements for the entire system. This may define size, weight, vehicle mounting interface, mast height, operator display and interface etc. | Contractor is free to describe this requirement |
| Draft RFP Section C SOO: P 3.0 Scope, 3rd paragraph | For the deployment scenario in which the system is remotely deployed, does the delivered system include two communications terminals, one at the sensor site and one at the AMOC? Is the communication path-line-of-sight at all times? What is the maximum dis | One terminal, two way com, LOS satellite linked direct from SW/US to Riverside, CA. |
| SOO C.4.1.1, C.4.1.2 & Attachment 1, Factor 1-1 | Is the intent to require full hemispherical coverage, or is it acceptable to have a cone-shaped blind-spot around zenith? The latter is simpler and less expensive to implement. If the blind-spot is acceptable, what max elevation angle is required? | Near hemispherical coverage is prefered. |
| RFP, B.1 | Should the Contractor propose volume discounts based on their recommendations or are the volume discounts to be proposed as stated in the examples (2-5, 5-9, etc.)? | Contractor may propose volume discounts based on their reccommendation or use example CLIN. |
| RFP, B.2.3.3 | Under which cost structure will the “modifications recommended” be covered? Please change RFP to read: “modifications required to pass first article test will be incorporated.” | RFP will be changed to reflect new language. |
| RFP, B.2 / B.2.15 (CLIN 0025) | Various CLIN scope descriptions reference that they may include Travel. However, CLIN 0025 states that this CLIN is for all approved travel in the base year. Is travel to be proposed by CLIN with the associated task, OR is CLIN 0025 the only CLIN where tr | All travel to be proposed under CLIN 0025 as NTE. |
| RFP, B.2.1.1.3. #93 Answers to Questions | States that the FAT Unit consists of a sensor component and remote component. The remote component is assumed to be the Remote Power Component and not the communications component. | Yes. RFP will have new language. |
| Recommend that B.2.1.1.3 be changed to read “… FAT Unit consists of a sensor component and communications component…” to agree with the answer to Question #93 that states that CBP will provide the power generation unit for FAT testing. Agreed PRR | RFP will have new language. | |
| RFP, C.2.5.4 | RFP states that AMOC has same level of control as the Operator who is onsite with the system. However, the answer to a related question states that ON/OFF and Pointing is all that is required. Further, Attachment 1-6 specifies Power ON/OFF, Standby, Adjus | Agreed - same level of control as AMOC. |
| RFP, E.2.1 | Should FAT travel support CLIN 0011 read CLIN0025? | Yes. RFP will have new language. |
| RFP, E.2.2 | Should Contractor support CLIN 0009 read CLIN 0023? | Yes. RFP will have new language. |
| RFP, F.1.1 /I.1.1 | The Liquidated Damages clause 52.211-11 full text was removed from Section F. It is still listed as a clause incorporated by reference; however, it is not in Section I. Will the resulting contract have liquidated damages and if so what is the amount? | Yes. Amount $1,000 per day. |
| RFP, F.5 | Please provide details on the delivery expectations for the individual options, considering possible modifications following FAT. Delivery would be to nearest OBP station near the Arazona border where the equipment would first be deployed. | Equipment acceptance and sign-off would take place there. |
| RFP, I.1.1 | 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages – Subcontracting Plan is incorporated by reference. Does the Government intend to remove this clause in the final RFP? If not, what is the amount for liquidated damages if the Contractor fails to meet the requirements as ident | See question 161. |
| RFP, I.1.1 | 52.215-10, 52.215-12 and 52.215-21 are all requirements related to Cost and Pricing Data. Section L.9.3 states “Since adequate price competition is anticipated in response to this solicitation, certified cost or pricing data is not required.” Please advis | No |
| RFP, L.9 | States that the offeror’s proposal shall provide all price tables related to cost and fee in MS Excel. Will templates for cost submittal be provided with the Final RFP? | No |
| RFP, L.9.5.2 | Is there a page limitation for the Cost/Price Limit Volume? L.9.5.2 states that “This document shall not exceed two (3) pages including TOC.” Please clarify. | |
| RFP, L.7.11.7 and L.8.2.2 | L.7.11.7 states that “Title pages, table of contents, section dividers, and cover pages will not count in page limits. However, L.8.2.2 states, “Section 2 – Executive Summary and Table of Contents (no more than 3 pages).” Please clarify if the TOC is incl | RFP language changed. |
| RFP, L.8.2.4 | Please consider excluding the PWS from the Volume I - Technical 25 page count. | RFP page count will be 50 pages. |
| RFP, L.8.2.6 and L.9.6.4 | There are inconsistencies as to whether or not the Exceptions count toward the page counts of both Volume I - Technical and Volume II - Cost/Price. Per Section L instructions, Exceptions is required in both the Technical (L.8.2.6) and Cost-Price Volume (L | RFP changed. |
| Attachment 1 | The -40° temperature requirement reduces the available COTS communications and power components. Please consider changing temperature requirement to -25°F for operation and -40° for storage. | Agreed |
| Answers to Questions | Please clarify the answers to questions 65-74, which were all answered with the following: “Will be clarified in the RFP as one year.” | |
| Answers to Questions #25 | Answer states that CBP facilities and remote systems can use Satcom as currently employed by AMOC. Does the Government require that the Contractor uses the AMOC Satcom system for remote operations or should the Contractor offer an alternative Satcom servi | Use AMOC satcom only. |
| If the Government requires the AMOC Satcom system, please provide the necessary information to enable the Contractor to provide the necessary equipment to connect to the AMOC Satcom system. | RFP will address. | |
| Page 5, B.1 | Please clarify if the cost of Maintenance and Repair Services for the optional units during the Base Period is to be included is CLIN 0022 or if a new CLIN will be provided. | CLIN 0022 or vendor can propose. |
| Page 7, Section B.2.1.1.3 | Will a copy of Attachment 8, ULAD Concept, be provided with the RFP? | Yes |
| Page 7, Section B.2.1.2 | Are the CBP FAT personnel experienced radar operators familiar with CBP operation processes?[1] | No response (operational question) |
| Page 8, Section B.2.8.1 | Do the candidates of the Operator and Maintenance Train-the-Trainer courses have radar operations and maintenance experience, and/or experience as a trainer? [2] | No response (operational question) |
| Page 10, Section B.2.11.1 | Please confirm all items under B.2.11.7 (i.e., B.2.11.7.1 to 2.11.7.12.8) are to be delivered as a single CDRL. | yes |
| Page 10, Section B.2.11.7.11 | Please confirm the monthly updates will only address items that have changed since the last monthly update.[3] | TBD |
| Page 14, Section B.2.14.1.1 | Will the “applicable documents” describing the AMOC interface be provided with the RFP? [4] | Yes |
| Page 17, Section C.5.3 | Please clarify when and in what form (for example: report in contractor format, monthly status report, risk summary presentation/meeting...) the risk summary, mitigation, etc., have to be presented. | TBD |
| Page 24, Section F.5 | Please confirm the Due Date for CDRL U-0005 is 45 calendar days after receipt of ULAD Contractor notification that FAT has been successfully completed, as specified in CLIN 0021. | RFP will address. |
| Page 77, Section L.8.1.1 | Please clarify if the resource information (such as labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.) required is included in the 25 pages allocated to the Technical Proposal. If so, please clarify the level of detail required (e.g., number of p | Page count 50 pages. |
| None | Is DHS able to receive and evaluate a ULAD proposal that is DoD classified, if necessary?[6] | Not looking for DOD classified |
| None | Will Monthly Status Reports and/or Quarterly Program Management Reviews be required? | TBD |
Are the CBP FAT personnel experienced radar operators familiar with CBP operation processes?[1] Do the candidates of the Operator and Maintenance Train-the-Trainer courses have radar operations and maintenance experience, and/or experience as a trainer? [2] Please confirm the monthly updates will only address items that have changed since the last monthly update.[3] Will the “applicable documents” describing the AMOC interface be provided with the RFP? [4] Please clarify if the resource information (such as labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.) required is included in the 25 pages allocated to the Technical Proposal. If so, please clarify the level of detail required (e.g., number of p Is DHS able to receive and evaluate a ULAD proposal that is DoD classified, if necessary?[6]
Sheet1
| Paragraph number | Question or Comment | Answers | |
| B.1, CLIN 0003, page 6 | “The Contractor shall deliver… one (1) to a maximum of (50) units…” This does not seem to agree with the CLIN 0003 in the table on page 5. How do these relate to one another? | This information has been retracted and replaced with updated CLIN information. | |
| B.1, CLIN 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 | Same question as above for “(6 through 10 units)” | See answer to Question # 1 | |
| B.1 page 11 | What are the periods of performance for the Options 1 to 4? | Be for 1 year each option period should government elect to exercise. | |
| C.1, 4.3, page 13, and Attachment #1 Factor 1-3 | “…at least five (25) targets…” What is the correct number of targets? Attachment #1 also says “25” | Should be 25 simultaneous. | |
| C.1, 6.0 Applicable Documents | Attachment numbering does not agree with attachments – “Attachment 2” should be “Attachment 1”, and no “CBP Training and Development Standards” were attached to the draft RFP | Attachment number is correct. Attachment 4, 5, & 6 were not posted with Draft RFP. | |
| L.12, B. Vol II – Cost/Price Proposal | Will there be more specific instructions on the cost section, such as provide cost estimates for each CLIN? | Yes | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Since only a radar signature is cited, does this imply that there is no appreciable IR or acoustic signature from the ultra-light in some or all of its flight modes? Please clarify | No, we have no IR signature information to provide | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Are there required track accuracies and resolutions in all three dimensions and velocity? Please clarify | No requirement for track accuracy or velocity | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | Is there a required maximum false track rate? Please clarify | No requirement, this will be developed from first unit field testing and operational testing | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-1 | The objective velocities imply some overlap with General Aviation Aircraft (GAA) and UASs, is it desired or required to have an integrated Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) with Mode C, Mode 2 decode available to aid in differentiation? Please clarify | Nice but not necessary. | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 1-2 | Is the data required to be recorded directly at the radar for Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) evidentiary reasons with a requirement for data integrity? Please clarify | Data recorded at the AMOCC | |
| Attachment 1, ULAD Capabilities Matrix, Factor # 2-3 | Factor 2-3 states that the systems will be transported using existing CBP vehicles. What vehicles, make and model will be used for transporting the system? Please clarify | Vendor should specify | |
| Page 63, paragraph L-12 | This paragraph states that “The request for proposal is due on August 16, 2010 at 3:30 PM EST. Please clarify | Disregard due date of August 16, 2010. RFP due date will be in actual RFP solicitation. | |
| Paragraph number | Question/Comment | ||
| None | Will the final RFP be written to consider Passive Acoustic Sensor Detection System for detecting and tracking Ultra Light Aircraft? | Written to consider all effective means | |
| None | Are the detection assets to be distributed by regions? Can the quantity, size of the regions and locations be provided? | No. Solutions will be required to cover all regions | |
| None | Would there be a requirement to network regional assets into a centralized regional facility or mobile center? | All data returned to the AMOCC through land line or satellite link. | |
| Page 5, Paragraph B. 1 | Will the CBP exercise multiple CLINS for the units simultaneously during the base period and/or the option periods? (Example: exercise CLIN 0003A , CLIN 0003B and CLIN 0003E at the same time) | Possible, the number of CLIN's exercised will be dependent on the Government's need. | |
| None | Will there be a requirement to network regional assets into a centralized regional facility or mobile center? | Answered | |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | What type of communications assets are in place at the existing CBP facilities? | Satcom as currently employed by AMOCC | |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | What type of communications assets are envisioned when the units are remotely deployed? | Satcom as currently employed by AMOCC | |
| None | Can you provide a network diagram for the principle nodes along with the node functionality description? | Not at this time | |
| Page 12, Section 3.0, 2nd Paragraph | Does the CBP have re-fuelers to replenish fuel at the sites for the generators of the remotely deployed units? | Yes- that is the plan. | |
| None | Would the capability to control the CBP UAV assets add to system capability if this was inherent at no additional cost? | Not at this time. | |
| None | Are the operating areas of the CBP UAV's somewhat fixed or normal? If so what is the size of the operating area in sq kilometers? | This is operationally sensitive information. | |
| None | Are you able and willing to receive DoD classified material? | No. Solutions will be required to cover all regions | |
| Performance objectives 4.1 | Given that this is a low/slow flying aircraft detection problem would consideration be given to reducing threshold altitude to 5,000 MSL? Technically, this is a clean breakpoint between ‘low flying’ and more normal altitudes which are picked up by conventional radar systems. It also allows for mix of optimal solutions | No | |
| Performance objectives 4.2 | What consideration has been given to non line of sight scenarios particularly with respect to range/gaps in coverage? | None | |
| Performance objectives 4.2 | Wouldn’t a minimum detection range less than 1km be more appropriate particularly in rugged non line of sight terrain? The requirements matrix shows a height of 33 ft. We assume this is the correct minimum range. Has consideration been given to line of defense type systems vs radar where requirement is linear range of coverage rather than circular range? | ||
| Performance objectives 4.3 | Is the requirement 5 or 25 simultaneous targets? See typo. What operational scenarios support this requirement? | 25 is correct. Has to do with commercial aircraft in the target area. | |
| Performance objectives 4.3 | Are the 5 targets identical? What is their spacing in the sky? | Not necessarily. | |
| Performance objectives 4.4 | What method of transport is envisioned? Is this transit case in back of agent truck? More MSS like integrated vehicle? Any requirement for hand carry? Is that desirable? | Transit case, 2-man carry envisioned but not required. | |
| N/A | Since Section M is missing, can you provide the evaluation criteria and ranking? | Section M will be provided with release of the actual RFP. | |
| Pg 5, B.1 | For the Volume Discount for Base Period 1 in the table, please clarify if the quantities should be 6 through 10 instead of 2 through 5. | See answer to question # 1. | |
| pg 12, 3.0, 3rd para | What is considered "real time" data transfer to the AMOC? How much latency is acceptable? Also, how much latency is acceptable in regard to remote control of sensors? | Consideration will be given for low latency in both cases. | |
| pg 12, 3.0, 3rd para | There is no appendix A. Do you mean attachement 3? | Yes, wording will be corrected. | |
| pg 47, J.1 | Attachments 4, 5, & 6 were not provided with the draft rfp and will be needed to respond to a final rfp. Please provide. | See answer to question # 8. | |
| pg 63, L.12 | Paragraph 1 says to submit 8 hard copies and 2 CDs. Paragraph 3 says to electronically submit to the e‐mail address listed. Please clarify submission requirements (i.e. one or the other or both). | Inconsistency noted, actual RFP will clarify submission requirements. | |
| pg 64, L.12, A | Does the Transmittal Letter (Section 1) count towards the 50pg limit of the Technical Volume. | See answer to question # 46. | |
| pg 64, L.12, A | Does the PWS (Section 4) count towards the 50pg limit of the technical volume | See answer to question # 46. | |
| pg 65, L.12, B | Paragaph 1 says to submit "five (8)" hard copies. Please clarify the number of Cost Proposals to be submitted. | See answer to question # 46. | |
| Attachment 1 | Does the table contain all KPPs for the system or are there more? If there are more, please provide. | All are contained. | |
| Attachment 1 | Several of these requirements are not technical or performance related. Is this matrix to be interpreted as the technical/performance requirements for the system or as the evaluation criteria for the proposal? Please clarify. | Evaluation criteria. | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐3 | Please specify an objective value for the number of simultaneous tracks. | 25 | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐4 | Please specify an objective value for operational temperature range. | minus 40 to plus 125F | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐5 | Does the objective value of "None" mean that the data must be AMOSS compatible for both the threshold and objective cases. | Yes | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 1‐6 | Please specify an objective capability for remote control. | on/off, pointing | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐1 | Should the threshold Ao be 75%, as described in CLIN 0008, Case A on page 9 of the RFP? | Wll be revised in RFP. | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐1 | Please specify a value for the objective deployment time. | Three hours | |
| Attachment 1, Factor 2‐2 | Does the objective value of "None" mean that the 96 hours of continuous operation applies to both the threshold and objective cases? | yes | |
| Attachment 2, pg 1 | Where can we obtain the DHS/CBP Enterprise Architecture and Technical Reference Models, as referenced in Attachment 2? | These documents will be provided to the successful vendor upon award. | |
| Attachment 2, pg 1 | Where is the HSAR clause incorporated into the SOO and which CLIN(s) does the scope described flow into? | Clause is referenced in Section I and relative to CLIN 0010. | |
| General | Is there GFE contemplated for this program? If so, please provide the GFE list. | No, other than satellite channels and integration into the AMOSS | |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0003, p. 5-6 | The CLIN 0003 Description states that the contractor shall deliver one (1) to a maximum of fifty (50) units based on volume discounts selected by the Government. The CLIN structure as outlined on the table on Page 5 does not reflect up to Qty 50. The maximum Qty is 5 units, although the Option Period summary CLIN reads “Volume Discount Units (6 through 10).” | See answer to question # 1. | |
| Please clarify the table on Page 5. Our recommendation is to increase quantities to allow for maximum volume discounts | See answer to question # 1. | ||
| Draft RFP, B.1, p. 5 | Please specify the Option Period schedule as described in Schedule of Supplies/Services Table. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Is the Executive Summary in Section 2 the same Executive Summary called out under Section 3 for Volume I, Technical? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Please clarify the number and placement of Executive Summaries required for Volume 1, Technical. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | ||
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 65 | Is Section 6 included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Is the Transmittal letter included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, L, L.12, p. 64 | Are the Table of Contents, Table of Figures, and Table of Tables included in the Volume I 50 page count? | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Draft RFP, E.4 & E.5, p. 15 | Please clarify the following: “Every ULAD, with exception of the first unit shall be subject to FAT.” | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | |
| Please consider First Article Test (FAT) for first unit testing and Production Acceptance Test (PAT) for all follow-on units after FAT. | Will be clarified in the RFP as one year. | ||
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0004, p. 7 | CLIN 0004, Train the Trainer Course states: “The vendor shall use the CBP Training Development Standards October 2008 for development of the T3 Course.” | Will be provided with actual RFP. | |
| Please provide the standard needed for training material development. | |||
| Draft RFP, B, p. 7 | Are the items listed in the ILSP all CDRLs? Please consider updating the CDRL Table to include required items. | Yes | |
| Draft RFP, H, H.3, p. 24 | The Draft RFP states: “This contract requires access to classified national security information up to the level.” However, the security level is not provided. What is the highest security level required to perform this contract? | Law enforcement sensitive | |
| Draft RFP, C, 3.0, p. 12 | The Government states the system must be transportable. Please provide a description of the transportability requirements and the vehicles to be used for transport. | Contractor is free to describe this requirement | |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0002, p. 6 | CLIN 0002 reads that the system will be priced after successful FAT completion. Did the Government intend this to mean delivery of the unit? It is assumed the system price will be established for the individual unit at proposal/award. Please clarify. | See answer to question # 1. | |
| Draft RFP, B.1, CLIN 0006, p. 7 | CLIN 0006 Product Drawing Package. The paragraph reads that the goal of the drawing package is to provide adequate system level logistics support. It then reads that the drawings will be used to provide technical data for competitive procurement of spares (not system level end item). Does the Government anticipate competitive procurement of the spares? Would the spares to be procured from other than the OEM be determined with recommendation from the OEM? | Paragraph will be revised. Government does not intend competitive procurement of spares. | |
| Recommend either the OEM provide spares OR the Government along with the OEM work together to determine the spares to be competitively procured | See answer for question # 83. | ||
| Draft RFP, E.5, p. 15 | States “The Vendor shall price FAT support labor under CLIN 0008 and Travel under CLIN 009. If requested by the Government, Vendor support costs for subject matter expertise shall be billed under CLIN 0008 (Vendor Technical Support).” CLIN 0009 is for Vendor Technical Support per page 9. Is FAT support to be priced under CLIN 0009 or CLIN 0008 (Maintenance & Repair Service)? Further, CLIN 0009 Page 9 reads that no travel will be priced under that CLIN. | Paragraph will be revised. | |
| Please clarify where FAT support and travel for FAT support should be priced. | Revised RFP will stipulate. | ||
| Draft RFP, F.8, p. 18 | CLIN 0002 states that the Individual Unit will be delivered with the FAT Unit. Section B CLIN 0002 (Page 6) states that the Individual Unit will be delivered with modifications recommended from completion of FAT. | Paragraph will be revised. | |
| Please clarify the delivery date of the Individual Unit under CLIN 0002. | Delivery date TBD after contract award. | ||
| Draft RFP, CLIN 0010, p. 10 | For the communication unit, does the communications service plan need to be priced in the proposal or can we propose a communication unit that will operate on an existing CBP service plan? If separate pricing is required, what is the required period of service? | No, that is govt. furnished. | |
| Draft RFP, C, 4.5, p. 13 | What is the preferred fuel type for the power generation unit? | No preference | |
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0001, p. 6 | Will CBP provide fuel for the power generation unit during FAT? | Yes | |
| Draft RFP, B, CLIN 0001, p. 6 | Will CBP provide all required test aircraft during FAT? | Yes | |
| Attachment 1, 2-6, p. N/A | The capabilities matrix specifies a 3 hr threshold setup time and 30 min objective. The remarks identify “setup by one person.” Is the remark noted for one person a threshold or objective capability? Additionally, please clarify the rationale for requiring setup by one person? | Both threshold and objective. Transport and assemble may require two persons, operating only one. | |
| Attachment 1, 4-2, p. N/A | Lifecycle cost is identified as a requirement, but not called out in the ILSP as a development item, nor is there an applicable CDRL. Please clarify. | This should be called out in a CDRL | |
| Attachment 1,1-1, p. N/A | (Velocity) Is 24 knots the minimal radial velocity of the Ultra Light Aircraft to the sensor, or the aircraft velocity? | Aircraft velocity. | |
| Attachment 1, 1-4, p. N/A | Is sensor performance degradation acceptable in inclement weather (rain, dust storm, etc.)? To what level? | Yes, contractor should specify. | |
| Attachment 1, 2-4, p. N/A | The threshold capability states that the system shall be safe to operator and maintain with less than 100W/m2 RF energy at 1m or greater. Should this be 1m or less? | Yes | |
| Is there a peak power limitation to ensure safe operation? | No | ||
| Attachment 1, p. N/A | What are the Probability of Detection, Probability of False Alarm, and Swerling Model Type for the maximum detection range of the specified 1m2 (0.5m2) radar cross section target? | Unknown. Target is generic. --- RCS requirement is a best estimate. Probability of detection at max range is system dependent. There are no requirements on Probability of False Alarm; the AMOC will identify the type of target. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .