Amendment_0003_170002.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 34

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable) Amendment 0003 November 20, 2017

6. ISSUED BY CODE 44 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE 44 United States Coast Guard

C4ITSC-CPD-C3CEN

4000 Coast Guard Blvd., Annex 4 Portsmouth, VA 23703

Same as Item 6 POC: Christina Grimstead E-mail: Christina.M.Grimstead@uscg.mil

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

HSCG44-17-R-170002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

August 28, 2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended / is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning one copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) N/A

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.)

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not / is required to sign this document and return ___ copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The subject solicitation is hereby amended as follows:

A. The Offer Due Date/Time is extended until December 21, 2017, 12:00 PM, Eastern Time.

B. The Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, Exhibits A-B and Attachments 1-8 have been revised; all other versions of the documents are obsolete.

C. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) that have already been received by the Government do not need to be re-submitted to be valid since the only change to the PPQ is the due date/time.

D. The following Questions and Government Responses are provided for informational purposes.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY:

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

CONTINUATION SHEET FOR:

STANDARD FORM 30

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

All “References” below reference the documents applicable to HSCG44-17-R-170002, Amendment 0001.

1.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Page 5

Contractor Question: The specified contract ceiling amount on page 5 indicates $18M. What is the rationale behind the change from the previously published RFI pricing range to the specified RFP contract ceiling price?

Government Response: The Government reviewed the Request for Information (RFI) and a pricing range was not specified in the RFI.

2.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Page 5

Contractor Question: Will the government consider a proposal that exceeds the contract ceiling price in the RFP for award, or consider it non-compliant?

Government Response: The Government will evaluate all proposals that are received by the offer due date/time in accordance with the criteria in the solicitation.

3.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Contractor Question: The PWS indicates that the remote site monitoring system is required.

Does the USCG intend to publish the list of remote site equipment to be monitored and what interfaces are needed for this equipment?

Government Response: The PWS has been revised; see PWS Addendum C, RFF Sensors and Sensor Interfaces. Not every sensor is installed at every site; RFF sensors will be identified during remote site surveys.

4.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

6.6.2 - Station Operator Consoles

Contractor Question: Paragraph 6.6.2, Station Operator Consoles, contains requirements for Sector Operator Consoles (6.6.2.3 and 6.6.2.4). Should these instead reference "Station Operator Consoles"?

Government Response: Yes, Sections 6.6.2.3 and 6.6.2.4 are “Station” Operator Console requirements. The PWS has been corrected.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

5.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

6.10 - Telephone Interface

Contractor Question: Please clarify the phrase "primary and backup" as it relates to the "...

Audio Route/Record/Replay System (primary and back up)".

Government Response: The primary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay System would support all sector and station workstations and all RFFs in the region. The secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay System would function in hot standby and would mirror all data in the primary (including recorded audio). Switch over by a console operator would be either manual or automatic. The word “back up” has been removed from PWS Section 6.10 and replaced with “secondary”.

6.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections

6.6.1.5 - Sector Console Architecture and 6.6.2.5 - Station Console Architecture

Contractor Question: Please provide information about the IP network service quality, specifically, how much jitter can be expected, and how much packet loss.

Government Response: The existing Coast Guard WAN, an MPLS-based service provided by Verizon, already supports both radio and telco audio.

7.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections

6.6.1.5 - Sector Console Architecture and 6.6.2.5 - Station Console Architecture

Contractor Question: What is the demarcation between thin and thick client, specifically with respect to the requirements regarding:

- CAC

- number of loudspeakers (6-8)

- jitter in conjunction with multiple loudspeakers

Government Response: The term thin client is used to describe software applications that use the client-server model in which the server performs all the processing. Thin clients and other lean devices rely on a network connection to a central server for full computing and do limited processing on the hardware itself. Sections 6.6.1.5 - Sector Console Architecture and 6.6.2.5 - Station Console Architecture have been updated in the PWS. Thin client consoles shall meet all respective thick client requirements. The existing Coast Guard WAN, an MPLS-based service provided by Verizon, already supports both radio and telco audio.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

8.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections

6.6.1.5 - Sector Console Architecture and 6.6.2.5 - Station Console Architecture

Contractor Question: Please specify your tolerance in the audio delay variation when propagated via multiple paths. This is essential for the audio quality with respect to echos and reverberation when transmissions from one source are received by multiple base stations with overlapping coverage areas.

Government Response: Network Latency Compensation (Section 6.11.2 of the original PWS) has been removed from the PWS. Audio delay compensation is not a requirement for RCS.

9.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.3.3

Contractor Question: Please specify the standard used for the network interface provided by USCG for this project - especially with respect to DiffServ/QoS negotiation?

Government Response: The existing WAN is MPLS; CG Cisco routers can inherit QoS. The CG WAN also supports multicast. This information has been added to the PWS (Sections 6.6.1.6

- Sector Console Architecture and 6.6.2.5 - Station Console Architecture).

10.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.3.2

Contractor Question: We understand that the Quantar base station is not part of the P25 infrastructure as the Quantar base station does not support DFSI. Please confirm that the P25 ground base infrastructure only consists of iCOM Eclipse 2 and Motorola KMF.

Government Response: The Government seeks to standardize base station interfaces to the greatest extent possible, providing an upgrade path for VTS. Desired integration of the Quantar or AstroTAC with RCS would be via an AFSI interface conforming to TIA-102.BAHA or successor. Section 6.3.2.1 was added to the PWS.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

11.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.8

Contractor Question: Please provide the Interface Control Document (ICD) for the Motorola KMF and the required functionality for key distribution.

Government Response: The Government does not possess an ICD for the Motorola KMF currently in use at CBP’s NLECC facility, hence the option of compliance with other vendor commercial KMF equipment.

12.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.4.1

Contractor Question: Please specify the network interfaces provided by USCG, specifically if the network interfaces are redundant. In this case, please describe the redundancy mechanisms/protocols and characteristic parameters (e.g. max outage time, etc.).

Government Response: The Coast Guard’s CGOne WAN, an MPLS cloud, is provided by Verizon.

13.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9

Contractor Question: Please provide the number and type of all sensor interfaces to be monitored.

Government Response: The PWS has been revised; see PWS Addendum C, RFF Sensors and Sensor Interfaces. Not every sensor is installed at every site; RFF sensors will be identified during remote site surveys.

14.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9.1

Contractor Question: Please confirm that all alarm sensors to be monitored are available, installed and allow the connection to the vendor's system. In case sensors shall be provided, please specify the exact amount and location of the sensors to be included in the offer.

Government Response: The PWS has been revised; see PWS Addendum C, RFF Sensors and Sensor Interfaces. Not every sensor is installed at every site; RFF sensors will be identified during remote site surveys.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

15.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9.5

Contractor Question: Please confirm that all radios have a monitoring port available for remote monitoring connection. Please provide the Interface Control Documents (ICD) for these ports.

Government Response: The PWS has been revised; see PWS Addendum C, RFF Sensors and Sensor Interfaces. Not every sensor is installed at every site; RFF sensors will be identified during remote site surveys.

16.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9.7

Contractor Question: Please confirm that the generator fuel tanks have appropriate sensors in place and that these are accessible via a remote connection. Please provide the Interface Control Documents (ICD) for these connections.

Government Response: The PWS has been revised; see PWS Addendum C, RFF Sensors and Sensor Interfaces. Not every sensor is installed at every site; RFF sensors will be identified during remote site surveys.

17.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001)

Contractor Question: Will the vendor be required to provide 19" cabinets/racks with their equipment or will existing rack be available to accommodate vendor equipment? If racks will be provided please advise if commercial racks can be used, or if seismic racks are required, and the maximum rack size/floor space that will be available at each site. If rack space is available, please advise how much rack space will be available at each site to accommodate the vendor equipment.

Government Response: Commercial racks are acceptable. A few sectors have seismic floors, negating the need for seismic racks (will be identified during site surveys). The requirements for racks has been added to the PWS; offeror should describe rack space required to meet requirements.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

18.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 4.3

Contractor Question: Will the Government provide a USCG AD and CAC card test environment for FAT testing to the vendors?

Government Response: CG AD is the Microsoft Active Directory product; connection to CG AD and CAC requires a connection to CGOne’s test environment, which will be made available to the vendor after award. The Coast Guard has these connections available on the C3CEN baseline or at GDMS Scottsdale.

19.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 4.6.5

Contractor Question: Does the USCG have a Non Disclosure Agreement in place with GD with regards to this project?

Government Response: No, however the contractor will need to mark their documentation required by PWS Sections 4.6.5 and 4.7.5 in accordance with CDRL A011.

20.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 5.0 Exhibit A, CDRLs

Contractor Question: Please provide the DIDs or a location to find the DIDs referenced in the

RFP.

Government Response: DIDs can be searched for at http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx.

Enter the DID# (e.g., DI-MGMT-81334D) in the “Document ID” search box and click the “Search” button.

21.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.7

Contractor Question: The requirement is to provide a FIPS Pub 140-2 compliant encryption capability. Please specify which of the security levels of FIPS Pub 140-2 shall be implemented.

Government Response: Cryptographic Protection controls SC-13, DHS-5.5.1.a and -5.5.2.c are required. Section 6.7 of the PWS has been updated.

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

22.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.7.2

Contractor Question: The requirement asks for user selection of encryption mode (on/off) and key selection. Please confirm that all other encryption parameters (e.g. algorithm to be used, key length etc…) are predefined and will not change during system operational lifetime.

Government Response: The Government cannot confirm that security requirements will not change over the operational life time of the system.

23.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.7.1

Contractor Question: The requirement asks for different crypto-keys for different missions.

Please specify what is meant by mission and how this relates to the single RFF's and SU's with respect to crypto-key selection and distribution.

Government Response: The current Radio Control System receives multiple keys from NLECC denoted by Slot Location Number (SLN). Keys may be selected by operators as and when needed. RFF base stations do not hold keys. Subscriber units (from Motorola, EF Johnson, Harris, etc.) hold the same encryption keys.

24.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections

6.7.1 and 6.7.2

Contractor Question: Please clarify if the crypto-keys shall really be stored in the RCS, or if the KMF shall store (or generate) the crypto keys commanded by the RCS in order to fulfill the operational requirements without security violations.

Government Response: RCS shall store keys as it may lose its network connection to the centrally located KMF.

25.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 4

Contractor Question: Will 11" x 17" size pages be acceptable for graphics in the proposal accounting for 2 letter size pages each?

Government Response: No

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

26.

Reference: Attachment 1, Price Schedule/CLINS and Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001)

Contractor Question: Since no level of effort is provided in the solicitation, should proposed prices be ceiling prices for each CLIN?

Government Response: No, the CLIN prices shall be firm-fixed price.

27.

Reference: Attachment 1, Price Schedule/CLINS (Amendment 0001)

Contractor Question: Were the San Juan, Puerto Rico (CLINs 19-23, 61) and Guam (CLINs 27-31, 62) sectors affected by recent hurricane events, and, if so, will that be addressed at the Task Order level?

Government Response: The recent hurricane events will not have any impact on this contract or task orders.

28.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 7.2.3, System Engineer

Contractor Question: The current requirement mandates the candidate have a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering (ABET-accredited academic solution). Many of the most qualified candidates will not have this Engineering degree. Will the Government allow the position to substitute years of experience on radio communications projects for the Bachelor’s degree in Engineering?

Government Response: The Bachelor degree requirement in the PWS has been removed.

Experience on radio communications projects must be described in detail in the Management Section of an offer.

29.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), 14.0 Accessibility Requirements (Section 508)

Contractor Question: Does the exception for the purposes of Section 508 apply to all components/systems involved in this acquisition?

Government Response: Yes.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

30.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 4, FAR Provision 52.212-1(b)(2), Technical Proposal, Management Section

Contractor Question: What does the USCG mean by “Handling Emergency Situations”? Can the USCG be more specific?

Government Response: The Radio Control System will replace a major part of the existing R21-C safety-of-life system. Any impact on R21-C operations must be minimized during installation. Emergency situations may be a short-term search-and-rescue (SAR) call or an approaching hurricane.

31.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 4, FAR Provision 52.212-1(b)(3), Past Performance Questionnaires

Contractor Question: Under past performance, there is a request to identify problems encountered and corrective actions. If there were no problems encountered or corrective actions taken, is this necessary?

Government Response: It is not required, but it provides contractors an opportunity to address any problems encountered during performance and any corrective actions taken by the contractor.

32.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 4, FAR Provision 52.212-1(b)(3), Past Performance Questionnaires

Contractor Question: If required, where in our proposal response would the USCG like for us to include any problems encountered or corrective actions taken?

Government Response: If applicable, the information should be provided separate from the other sections of the offer, be limited to the specific contract(s) and any problems encountered or corrective actions taken, and shall be limited to two pages. (A “page” is one single sided 8.5” x 11” sheet.)

33.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Page 4, Offer Due Date / Time

Contractor Question: The offeror respectfully requests an extension to allow for 30 days between receipt of answers and the due date.

Government Response: See new offer due date/time on page 1 of this Amendment.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

34.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Page 30, Page Limit “The Government will not count the Cover Page, Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and/or Acronym List in the page limit(s) above; however, each shall be limited to one page each."

Contractor Question: On page 29 the page limit for the Cover Letter is 2 pages, please clarify.

Government Response: To clarify the page limit definition on page 30 has been changed to state “The Government will not count a Cover Page, Table of Contents, and/or Acronym List in the page limit(s) above; however, each shall be limited to one page each.”

The page limit for the Cover Letter remains 2 pages.

35.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 5, FAR Provision 52.212-2(a)(4) Evaluation, (4) Past Performance: "The Government will also consider information provided by the offeror on problems encountered on the contracts identified and the corrective actions taken.”

Contractor Question: In what Section is the offeror to provide this information? Will this information be counted towards the section page limits?

Government Response: If applicable, the information should be provided separate from the other sections of the offer, be limited to the specific contract(s) and any problems encountered or corrective actions taken, and shall be limited to two pages. (A “page” is one single sided 8.5” x 11” sheet.)

36.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Page 1, Section 1.0, paragraph 4

"...making a desired move toward competitive sustainment problematic." and "To address this problem, the Coast Guard has developed a transition-to-competition strategy"

Contractor Question: General Dynamics Missions Systems (GDMS) involvement in this effort as a prime or subcontractor may result in an actual or potential conflict of interest, or may provide one or more offerors with the potential to attain an unfair competitive advantage. Their sole source contract as the current sustainment provider creates unfair competition. Furthermore, GDMS's positioning is evident in the USCG's most recent Base Station solicitation HSCG44-17- R-170003, where GDMS was a subcontractor on every proposal. If the USCG is truly moving toward competition, GDMS must be precluded from involvement in this solicitation. Please confirm GDMS is precluded from being a prime or subcontractor on this solicitation?

Government Response: The USCG has not found a basis for restricting GDMS from competition on this R21-C RCS requirement.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

37.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Page 3 (second paragraph) and Page17, Section 6.8

Page 3..."To achieve soft cutover, ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations are being integrated with the existing R21 Coastal system. All RFFs are planned to be fully transitioned to ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations that have been configured, tested, and certified as fully operational prior to deployment of RCS."

Page 17, Section 6.8..."The R21 RCS is currently configured to receive P25-compliant encryption key material over the network from a Motorola Key Management Facility…"

Contractor Question: Before deployment of the RCS, but after the ICOM base stations are installed at each RFF and certified as fully operational, can it be assumed OTAR functionality exists with the existing Motorola KMF?

Government Response: Yes; the Coast Guard will continue to use KMF equipment at NLECC during this period.

38.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Page 3 (second paragraph), Page 17, Section 6.8, and Page 18, Section 6.8.1

Page 3..."To achieve soft cutover, ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations are being integrated with the existing R21 Coastal system. All RFFs are planned to be fully transitioned to ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations that have been configured, tested, and certified as fully operational prior to deployment of RCS."

Page 17, Section 6.8..."The R21 RCS is currently configured to receive P25-compliant encryption key material over the network from a Motorola Key Management Facility" Page 18... "6.8.1 Over The Air Re-Keying. The system shall be capable of receiving Key Management Messages (KMMs) generated by the CBP NLECC and distributing the KMMs to mobile subscriber units. If not compatible with the Motorola equipment, the system shall be compliant with other vendor commercial KMF equipment (provide details on commercial KMF compatibility)."

Contractor Question:

a. If OTAR functionality exists before deployment of the RCS, but after the ICOM bases stations are installed at each RFF and certified as fully operational, can the USCG provide details on the OTAR subsystem? Specifically, what boxes are involved? What is the signaling? This information would be needed to determine if the vendor's offering is compatible with "the Motorola equipment".

b. If OTAR functionality exists after ICOM bases stations are installed at each RFF and certified as fully operational, the new RCS system (regardless of console vendor) should inherently be capable of receiving KMMs generated by the CBP NLECC and distributing the KMMs to mobile subscriber units. If the USCG concurs, please confirm the vendor will not be responsible for OTAR. If the USCG does not concur, what is the role of the RCS in sending KMMs between the KMF and ICOM Base Station?

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

Government Response: The contractor shall be responsible for OTAR. Even after integration of the new base station with the existing system, OTAR will require the Motorola Wireless Network Gateway, an obsolete product, and the existing Radio Control System. Offerors shall describe the ability of the offered system to either function with the Motorola 7.X KMF currently in use (independent of the Wireless Network Gateway) or other vendor commercial KMF equipment.

39.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.8

- Key Management Facility (KMF)

Contractor Questions:

a. If the new RCS is not compatible with the current Motorola KMF equipment, does the offeror need to include in their quote another KMF? If so, please provide specifications for the KMF equipment to be proposed.

b. If another vendor's commercial KMF equipment is proposed, how many user licenses are required?

c. If another vendor's commercial KMF equipment is proposed, how many subscribers must it support?

d. If another vendor's commercial KMF equipment is proposed, is additional training required?

e. If an alternate KMF is proposed to replace the Motorola KMF, what additional training is required?

Government Response: The Government is not seeking quotes on a replacement KMF at this time, since the need to do so is not certain. The Government currently has four user licenses and ~14,000 subscribers. The current KMF also includes a TIA-102.AACD-A interface to receive common keys. PWS Section 6.8 has been updated.

40.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.7

- Encryption

Contractor Questions:

a. Is it required for consoles to support Over-the-Ethernet-Keying (OTEK)? This would allow the system the ability to remotely key all dispatch consoles.

b. If OTEK is not a requirement, how should consoles receive their encryption keys?

Government Response: Encryption at the operator console is not a requirement. Support for encryption shall include the ability to receive keys. Offerors shall describe how the offered Radio Control System will meet encryption requirements. PWS Section 6.7 has been updated to include this requirement.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

41.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), 18, Section

6.8 - Key Management Facility (KMF)

Contractor Questions:

a. Is the system required to provide voice priority over OTAR data? If so, how is this accomplished with the ICOM base stations and existing KMF prior to the new RCS being installed?

b. If an alternate KMF is proposed, does a data router need to be provided to route the KMMs between the KMF and the ICOM Base Stations?

c. Does the KMF need to control the security state of managed consoles units? This would include providing a full accounting of each device’s current and intended state in the key management system.

Government Response: The existing system is being replaced. Its internal functionality is not germane. The Government will not dictate vendor hardware or software solutions.

42.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 4.6

- Deployment of RCS to General Dynamics

Contractor Question: Is it correct to assume that the RCS that will be deployed to General Dynamics is for testing purposes? How many operator consoles are required for the General Dynamics RCS? How many base stations will this RCS support? Will alarm functionality be tested on this RCS? If so, please describe the type and quantity of alarms that will be monitored.

Is a logging recorder required for the General Dynamics RCS? Does the requirement for geographic redundancy on the live system apply to this test system as well?

Government Response: The number of consoles, primary and secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay Systems, and alarm interfaces has been added to the PWS.

Audio record/replay is required.

43.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 4.7

- Deployment of RCS to USCG C3CEN

Contractor Question: Is it correct to assume that the RCS that will be deployed to USCG C3CEN is for testing purposes? How many operator consoles are required for the USCG C3CEN RCS? How many base stations will this RCS support? Will alarm functionality be tested on this RCS? If so, please describe the type and quantity of alarms that will be monitored. Is a logging recorder required for the USCG C3CEN RCS? Does the requirement for geographic redundancy on the live system apply to this test system as well?

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

Government Response: The number of consoles, primary and secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay Systems, and alarm interfaces has been added to the PWS.

Audio record/replay is required

44.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9

- RFF and VTS Remote Site Monitoring

Contractor Question: Can the Government provide information about the sensors that are installed at each RFF and how they're currently being monitored? Are alarms currently being collected by RTUs at each RFF or SCC? Are alarms currently being collected at an RTU that can send data out over IP to a centralized monitoring device? If not, can the government provide information about how many alarms and what type is at each location?

Government Response: Alarm types and interfaces have been added to the PWS as PWS Addendum C. Alarms at specific location will be determined during site surveys.

45.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.6

- Operator Consoles

Contractor Question: Is it a requirement for operator consoles to be capable of accessing base radios outside of their region?

Government Response: See PWS Section 6.4.3, System Flexibility, for inter-region interoperability requirements.

46.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 2.0

- Scope

Contractor Question: If a vendor's proposed solution does not require the use of a BAHA compliant interface to fully integrate the Government furnished Quantars and AstroTac receivers with the Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay system would that solution be acceptable?

Government Response: Use of a non-standards compliant interface is not desired. See PWS Section 6.3.2.1.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

47.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections

4.6.4 and 4.7.4, SOVT

Contractor Question: Given the requirements for site surveys, equipment manufacturing, factory testing, field installing and testing, and required and approved reports and plans, would the government consider changing SOVT completion for both the GD and C3CEN systems from 90 calendar days after award (ACA) to 180 days ACA?

Government Response: Completion shall be on or before 120 calendar days after award; PWS Sections 4.6.4 and 4.7.4 in the PWS have been updated.

48.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Sections 4.10, 4.10.4, 4.10.9, and 4.11.4 ..."Working with General Dynamics" ...

Contractor Question: Can the Government provide additional detail on contractor vs. General Dynamics responsibilities associated with the deployment of the Radio Control Systems?

Government Response: General Dynamics’s primary deployment responsibilities will assist in cutover from the existing Radio Control System to the new and installation and testing of the DF/DSC subsystem.

49.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.9.5, Radio Fault Monitoring

Contractor Question: BAHA does not define fault management. Please confirm that the government furnished BAHA compliant interface to the ICOM stations will provide an output that will carry data that can be used for fault management of the radios.

Government Response: Fault management messages for the ICOM base stations have been added to the PWS.

50.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 1.0

Contractor Question: Does the RTS console replace the legacy VTS console?

Government Response: The RCS console will replace the existing VTS radio control console.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

51.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 1.0

Contractor Question: What are the requirements for interfacing and controlling the VHF Guard Receivers?

Government Response: See PWS Section 6.3.2.1.

52.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 2.0

Contractor Question: Is the interpretation that the direction finding correlation capability exists and is not part of the scope with the exception that the RCS feeds audio to the DF/DSC system correct?

Government Response: Correct; RCS provides recorded audio when queried by the DF/DSC subsystem.

53.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 3.1, PWS Addendum A

Contractor Question: Is the AstroTac receiver the VHF Watch Receiver identified in Addendum A?

Government Response: It is the VHF Guard receiver.

54.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001)

Contractor Question: Are there defined locations within the regions where the “back room” systems will be installed?

Government Response: Not at this time; locations will be determined after surveys.

55.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.0

Contractor Question: Are the remote sites that are shared between sectors defined?

Government Response: This functionality was overlooked. It has been added to the PWS Section 6.6.1.2

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

56.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 1

Contractor Question: When will the delivery schedule be clarified?

Government Response: The solicitation is for an IDIQ contract and task orders will be issued in accordance with the IDIQ contract when services/supplies specified in the PWS are required.

Individual task orders will specify a period of performance for all work ordered, any deliverables with CDRLs that are ordered via a task order will be due based on the due date in the applicable

CDRL.

57.

Reference: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Amendment 0001), Section 1 and FAR Clause 52.216-22 (in Section 2)

Contractor Question: Is the anticipation that all Task Orders will be exercised in the 5 year period?

Government Response: Yes, it is anticipated that all Task Orders will be issued during the 5 year contract ordering period. However, please reference FAR Clause 52.216-22(d).

58.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.6.4 and 4.7.4

Contractor Question: What drives the 90-day schedule?

Government Response: Multiple efforts are required to complete deployment within the period of the contract. Completion shall be on or before 120 calendar days after award; Sections 4.6.4 and 4.7.4 in the PWS have been updated.

59.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 5.0 Exhibit A, CDRLS

Contractor Question: This section states that the due dates for the deliverables are in the applicable CDRL. The downloaded CDRL files appear to be the same general data instructions.

Will the USCG please provide detailed CDRL content requirements and due dates for each

CDRL.

Government Response: Content requirements and due dates for deliverables are provided in the CDRLs (A001 – A014), see Exhibit A for all CDRLs.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

60.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section 6.0

Contractor Question: Would you please clarify the existing R21 network capacity and architecture?

Government Response: The existing Coast Guard WAN, an MPLS-based service provided by Verizon, already supports both radio and telco audio. Quality of Service and multicast are supported on the network.

61.

Reference: Attachment 1, Price Schedule/CLINs (Amendment 0001)

Contractor Question: In the government price schedule, the format allows for input for each sector for the hardware. There is no cell for the required infrastructure in the region. Would the government please consider an additional CLIN for each region to separately price the infrastructure per region to support the sectors within the region.

Government Response: Infrastructure would be the Wide Area Network, power, HVAC, physical space and will be provided by the Government. (Please note that the CLIN structure has been updated.)

62.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), multiple places in PWS

Contractor Question: Section 2.0, Scope, paragraph two states that the RCS will interface with ICOM Eclipse 2 bases stations and Motorola Quantars. In paragraph 5, it is stated that before the RCS is deployed, all Quantars will be replaced with ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations. Several other places in the PWS list interfacing with Quantars and some only list ICOM Eclipse 2. Will the system require interfacing with ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations only or both ICOM Eclipse 2 and Motorola Quantar base stations.

Government Response: For the R21 Coastal system, all remaining Quantars will be replaced by ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations. For VTS remote sites, Quantar transceivers and AstroTAC receivers will remain at VTS remote sites until there is a requirement to replace them.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

63.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001) Section 2.0, Scope, Paragraph 3 Section 4.10 Section 4.11

Contractor Question: In the reference lists, it is stated that each region will have a dual “back room” systems. In “4.10 Initial Deployment of RCS – Sectors San Juan, Honolulu, and Guam”, there is no mention of dual “back rooms” like there is in “4.11 Full Rate Deployment to R21-C Regions”. Will a dual back room setup be required for the Atlantic Islands Region (San Juan / Virgin Islands) and Pacific Islands Region (Sector Guam / Sector Honolulu)?

Government Response: Primary and secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay Systems may be more difficult to achieve for the island sites. The secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay System will be placed in a separate CLIN.

64.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.5.1 Radio Control System Integration with Base Stations

Contractor Question: Referring to question 62, this section mentions Quantars. Will integration with Quantars be needed?

Government Response: For the R21 Coastal system, all remaining Quantars will be replaced by ICOM Eclipse 2 base stations. For VTS remote sites, Quantar transceivers and AstroTAC receivers will remain at VTS remote sites until there is a requirement to replace them.

65.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.5.3 - Factory Acceptance Test of the Radio Control System

Contractor Question: This section references a live demonstration of OTAR capabilities. At this point in the project, will we be able to interface with the CBP KMF used for main system?

As listed in “6.8 Key Management Facility (KMF)”, if the proposed Radio Control System is not compatible with current Motorola KMR equipment, the system shall be compliant with other vendor commercial KMF equipment (provide details on the commercial KMF system that affords compatibility). If the proposed system is not integrated into the CBP KMF or is not compatible with it, would a live demonstration with another vendor KMF system be required?

Government Response: The Contractor will have access to a Motorola KMF at General Dynamics for the test. If the offered system requires another vendor’s KMF, a demonstration with that KMF provided by the contractor will be required to verify OTAR capabilities.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

66.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.6.2 Installation Plan – General Dynamics

Contractor Questions: Several questions are listed about this requirement:

Backroom System:

a. Will one “backroom server” be required or is a dual setup required?

b. What capacity of a “backroom server” is required? Should it only cover the RFFs installed at

GD or does it need to be a full system as outlined in 6.3 “Radio Control System Capacities” with 75 console and 300 radio capacity?

c. Will the system be integrated into CG OneNet or a stand-alone GD network?

d. If this is integrating onto CG OneNet is there a Cybersecurity requirement for new hardware and software to be tested and approved prior to being installed on CG OneNet? If so, is there a plan for prompt approval?

Consoles:

e. How many Consoles are required?

f. Is there a place to install the consoles or does the contractor need to provide desks?

g. If more than one console is required, which configuration should the consoles be? How many are Sector consoles (six speaker) and how many are Station consoles (four speaker).

RFFs:

h. How many RFFs will be a part of the system at GD?

i. Will there be up to 4U of rack space in each RFF or does the contractor need to deploy their own rack solution to house the RFF RCS equipment?

j. Will UPS power be provided from the current RFF racks or does the proposed system need

UPS power, since none is listed as a requirement in the PWS?

k. Are there seven (7) network connections available in each RFF?

l. Are there seven (7) IP addresses available in each RFF?

m. Is there a generator set near the RFF location to be integrated into the remote site monitoring

(RSM) system? If so, what model/brand/fuel type?

Government Responses:

a. PWS has been modified to specify a primary and secondary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay System.

b. System installed at GD will be connected to two RFFs.

c. Stand-alone network.

d. System will be scanned by the Coast Guard to determine its IA status.

e. Two consoles, one sector, one station.

f. Furniture shall be included in offer; requirement was added to the PWS.

g. See answer “e”.

h. Two RFFs.

i. Contractor shall provide racks.

j. UPSs are required for sector equipment. A UPS shall be provided for the station console assembly.

k. Yes.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

l. Yes

m. Generator interfaces for remote site management have been added to the PWS (see PWS Addendum C).

67.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.7.2 Installation Plan – C3CEN

Contractor Questions: Several questions are listed about this requirement:

Backroom System:

a. Will one “backroom server” be required or is a dual setup required?

b. What capacity of a “backroom server” is required? Should it only cover the RFFs installed at

C3CEN or does it need to be a full system as outlined in 6.3 “Radio Control System Capacities” with 75 console and 300 radio capacity?

c. Will the system be integrated into CG Main network, CG Test Network, or a stand-alone network?

d. If this is integrating onto CG OneNet is there a Cybersecurity requirement for new hardware and software to be tested and approved prior to being installed on CG OneNet? If so is there a plan for prompt approval?

Consoles:

e. How many Consoles are required?

f. Is there a place to install the consoles or does the contractor need to provide desks?

g. If more than one console is required, which configuration should the consoles be? How many are Sector consoles (six speaker) and how many are Station consoles (four speaker).

RFFs:

h. How many RFFs will be a part of the system at C3CEN?

i. Will there be up to 4U of rack space in each RFF or does the contractor need to deploy their own rack solution to house the RFF RCS equipment?

j. Will UPS power be provided from the current RFF racks or does the proposed system need

UPS power, since none is listed as a requirement in the PWS?

k. Are there seven (7) network connections available in each RFF?

l. Are there seven (7) IP addresses available in each RFF?

m. Is there a generator set near the RFF location to be integrated into the remote site monitoring

(RSM) system? If so, what model/brand/fuel type?

Government Responses:

a. PWS has been modified to specify only a primary Radio/Console Control and Audio Route/Record/Replay System .

b. System installed at C3CEN will be connected to two RFFs.

c. Stand-alone network.

d. System will be scanned by the Coast Guard to determine its IA status.

e. Two consoles, one sector, one station.

f. Furniture shall be included in offer; requirement was added to the PWS.

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED:

Solicitation Number: HSCG44-17-R-170002

PAGE:

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Amendment Number: 0003

g. See answer “e”.

h. Two RFFs.

i. Contractor shall provide racks.

j. UPSs are required for sector equipment. A UPS shall be provided for the station console assembly.

k. Yes.

l. Yes

m. Generator interfaces for remote site management have been added to the PWS (see PWS Addendum C).

68.

Reference: Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Amendment 0001), Section

4.10.2 Install Plan - Sector San Juan

Contractor Questions: If two back room systems are required (see question 63) for the Atlantic Islands Region, since there is not two separate Sector Command Centers, it is assumed that the locations for these would be at SCC San Juan and STA Borinquen.

Back room system questions

a. Do the two locations have adequate space to install one or two 40U 19” racks of equipment?

b. Do the two locations have adequate available bandwidth on CG OneNet and will the government be…