ID05180024_Q&A_020819.pdf

Federal Acquisition Service Great Lakes Region

Solicitation: ID05180024 Department of Defense (DOD) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Sensor Data Backhaul

Subject Request For Proposals (RFP) Questions & Answers

Date: 8 February 2019

The following questions were submitted for the above-referenced project. Questions are listed verbatim as they were submitted; no edits have been made to question content.

Repeated questions are also listed.

1. Question The presolicitation synopsis for this stated this would be a small business set-aside. Can you please confirm the set-aside status?

Response This procurement is a total small business set-aside and is reflected as such in the FedBizOpps posting.

2. Question I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently perform-ing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

Response A contract for similar equipment was awarded to Sigma Defense Systems, Inc., contract number 47QFLA18D0003. However, the requirements under that award are not the exact same as those being procured under this RFP.

3. Question Reference RFP Section M.2.1 (Factor 1 Capability Demonstration) Page 65, Would the Government consider conducting the demonstration after a com-petitive range is established and a pool of qualified bidders is determined?

Can the Government clarify if they will take receipt of the successfully demonstrated system to allow the Small Business to recoup their investment?

Response The evaluation factors and procedures as set-forth in Section M of the RFP will be followed for this procurement and this includes a capability demonstra-tion of the proposed device. This is not a research and development (R&D) contract and the Government will not take receipt of any devices proposed under the solicitation and only intends to procure any necessary equipment as orders issued against the awarded contract.

4. Question Reference RFP Section M.2.1 (Factor 1 Capability Demonstration) Page 65, Will the government provide a grace period following proposal submission to allow the offerors time to conduct verification and validation testing of their prototype systems solution?

Response In accordance with the RFP, all offerors are required to participate in a capa-bility demonstration at the scheduled date and time. No official grace period will be established under this RFP.

5. Question Reference RFP Section M.2.3 (Factor 3 Past Performance) Page 67, Can the

Government clarify if the Past Performance is for the Prime contractor and teammates?

Response The past performance is to be for the contractor submitting a proposal in re-sponse to this RFP.

6. Question Section C, 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation, Will the Government confirm that environmental performance requirements such as those for temperature, humidity, shock and vibration will not be considered in the evaluation of the SATCOM Terminal equipment?

Response The system must be able to support a wide range of environmental factors for the specified locations in accordance with MIL-STD-810G.

7. Question Section C, 3.2.8.2 Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) must be capable of sustaining basic system operations, Will the Government clarify performance requirements for “sustaining basic system operations”?

Response The system’s function is to connect to the satellite network and pass support-ed sensor data during periods (length of time a evaluated criteria) of commer-cial/shore power loss. At a minimum, the UPS must allow an orderly shut-down (in accordance with normal shutdown procedures) of components in response to an unanticipated power outage.

8. Question Section C, 3.2.9. With appropriate training, the basic system setup shall be capable of completion (and demonstrate the ability to pass data) in no longer than four (4) hours; two (2) hours or less for a skilled contractor technician.

The government’s goal given the tactical, deployable requirement, soonest possible setup for the basic system itself is the optimal goal Section J At-tachment 7 - Capability Demonstration Evaluation Criteria 3.2.9 Did the con-tractor demonstrate ease with the basic system's setup and meet required setup timelines? Will the Government clarify the time requirement for the basic system setup and specifically confirm Section C 3.2.9 and Attachment 7 evaluation criteria?

Response In accordance with Section M.2.1 Factor 1, each offeror will be assigned one eight (8) hour session during which they will demonstrate setup, operationali-zation, and tear down of the proposed system/solution. The requirements for Section C 3.2.9 are as set-forth in the Statement of Work (SOW). Section J Attachment 7 – Capability Demonstration Evaluation Criteria will be used to evaluate the offeror’s capability demonstration.

9. Question Section C 3.3.5. Be capable of scalable backhaul (satellite or terrestrial) from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 25 Mbps Section C 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation: The system shall incorporate a suite of MILSATCOM certified (ARSTRAT requirements for WGS certification), or with an approved waiver, tactical Ka terminals with a minimum throughput of no less than 2 Mbps and a maximum of 25 Mbps, Will the Government confirm is the range of 2 to 25 Mpbs a requirement for “basic system” referenced in Section C 3.2 or are these threshold and objective requirements?

Response The basic system must be capable of ingesting no less than 2 Mbps up to 20 Mbps of sensor data from the supported source(s) and be capable of trans-mitting/backhauling the same. There is no threshold and/or objective—the basic system requirement is to support 2 Mbps minimum and no less than 20 Mbps maximum.

10. Question Section C 3.3.10. Although manual configuration capabilities may satisfy the provisions of this SOW the government is seeking an accredited mechanism to automate the configuration and control in order to increase ease of use and decrease set-up time. Will the Government clarify the evaluation criteria that will be used to determine if a manual configuration capability will satisfy the provisions of the SOW?

Response If the demonstration team can manually configure the basic system to accept sensor data input, connect to the satellite architecture, transmit/backhaul the supported sensor data, and downlink/display downlinked sensor data, manual configuration will be deemed acceptable/successful.

11. Question Section C 3.3.10. Although manual configuration capabilities may satisfy the provisions of this SOW the government is seeking an accredited mechanism to automate the configuration and control in order to increase ease of use and decrease set-up time. Will the Government identify the accreditation mecha-nism or agency for configuration and control?

Response The accreditation mechanism is the DoD’s Risk Management Framework (RMF). The agency for configuration and control is ASTRAT for termi-nal/modem access afforded to Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) and/or the applicable Combat Support Agency (CSA) and/or Geographical Combatant Command Approval Official (AO) for the basic system’s access to supported C2 Services.

12. Question Section C 3.3.18. Possess a total basic system weight not to exceed 500 pounds. Will the Government confirm there is no weight limitation on any in-dividual case and no limitation on the number of cases?

Response There is no individual case and/or limitation on the number of cases. Howev-er, the government’s expectation is individual container weights and dimen-sions will comply with MIL-STD-1472G.

13. Question Section C 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation: The system shall incorporate a suite of MILSATCOM certified (ARSTRAT requirements for WGS certifica-tion), or with an approved waiver, tactical Ka terminals with a minimum throughput of no less than 2 Mbps and a maximum of 25 Mbps. Will the Gov-ernment confirm there are no current waivers that would allow a non- ARSTRAT certified VSAT to operate over the WGS satellite constellation?

Response The technical demonstration must include WGS-certified and/or terminals possessing current ARSTRAT-waived terminals. The vendor may provide information/detail regarding proposed future terminal offerings as long as they have entered into and/or are currently being sponsored by the government for near term ARSTRAT certification and/or waiver, but they cannot be used dur-ing the technical evaluation.

14. Question Section C 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation. Will the Government confirm that minimum continuous wind and maximum wind gust conditions under which the VSAT must maintain data throughput will not be considered in the evaluation of the SATCOM Terminal equipment?

15. Question Section C 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation. Will the Government confirm that minimum horizontal and vertical range of motion will not be considered in the evaluation of the SATCOM Terminal equipment?

16. Question Section C 3.8. SATCOM Terminal Evaluation. Will the Government confirm that internal GPS capability is not a requirement and will not be considered in the evaluation of the SATCOM Terminal equipment?

17. Question Section C 3.3.5. Be capable of scalable backhaul (satellite or terrestrial) from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 25 Mbps. Will the Government confirm the minimal acceptable algorithm that must be applied to IPSEC tunnels such as AES-256 with baseline SHA?

Response The government will expect to see the application of Type-1 encryption with Generic Routing Encryption (GRE) for associated tunnels.

18. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3. Can the Government clarify performance en-hancements. In the SOW Paragraph 3, there is reference to minimum re-quirements and several areas of performance enhancements. The RFP is not clear on how these are both being considered in the evaluation. For example, does meeting performance enhancement requirements result in a higher rat-ed management approach?

Response The RFP confirms how proposals will be evaluated per Section M. Adjectival ratings and the associated criteria for those ratings is included in Section M, Table 1 which will be utilized for evaluation of factor 1 and factor 2.

19. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3. The SOW does not contain any environmental performance requirements from MIL-STD-810G. Section C SOW Paragraph 3 indicates the systems will primarily operate in severe environmental condi-tions. Historically on this program, satellite terminals operating in areas such as Africa and Southwest Asia normally include such requirements and cur-rent/previously procured systems for this requirement met MIL-STD-810G.

Recommend the government incorporate MIL-STD-810G as a required tech-nical specification.

Response As the application/operation of the systems in question are for military pur-pose and utility, it is expected the vendors submitting proposals will demon-strate familiarity with and application of the governing standards and guide-lines—including MIL-STD-810G and 1472G.

20. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.1. The SOW in the paragraph states "based upon user requirement" is vague and is open to interpretation. Can the gov-ernment provide clarification as to what user requirements related to the abil-ity the government is seeking.

Response The government supports a wide range of sensor data applications in support of real world operations—these range from single source, single location, less capable assets, and in other scenarios and at other locations, they may em-ploy multiple source, single location (collocated), and highly capable assets.

In response, a vendor’s offering of a single high end and often very expensive basic system may be less attractive to the military user in the first example. A vendor offering multiple options for employment/configuration, each of which satisfies the basic system’s minimum requirement but allowing flexibility in the form of cost, footprint, capacity, and capability, would be considered more beneficial (considering the user’s operational requirement than a one-size fits all solution).

21. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.2.6.1. The SOW in the paragraph states "based upon user requirement" is vague and is open to interpretation. Can the government provide clarification as to what user requirements related to the ability the government is seeking.

capable assets, and in other scenarios and at other locations, they may em-ploy multiple source, single location (collocated), and highly capable assets.

In response, a vendor’s offering of a single high end and often very expensive basic system may be less attractive to the military’s utility in the first example.

A vendor offering multiple options for employment/configuration, each of which satisfies the basic system’s minimum requirement but allowing flexibility in the form of cost, footprint, capacity, and capability, would be considered more beneficial (considering the user’s operational requirement than a one-size fits all solution).

22. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.3.18. SOW Paragraph 3.3.18 calls for weight not to exceed 500 pounds. This creates a potential Safety/HFE issue and recommend the government specify individual case weight limitations from MIL-STD-1472B or risk the potential of a single 500 pound case.

Response There is no individual case and/or limitation on the number of cases. Howev-

23. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.8. [SOW Paragraph 3.8 states, "The system shall incorporate a suite of MILSATCOM certified (ARSTRAT requirements for WGS certification), or with an approved waiver, tactical Ka terminals.

"Recommend the Government clarify that systems with existing ARSTRAT certification be rated higher (e.g. lower risk) than systems under a waiver"

Response There are numerous systems (e.g., terminals and modems) operating under ARSTRAT waivers (some of which have supported southwest Asia military operations for more than a decade—example: the primary modem support Digital Video Broadcast-Return Channel Satellite {DVB-RCS}) afforded for a variety of reasons. Considering that, the government does not consider a system operating under an ARSTRAT waiver as any more of a risk than an ARSTRAT certified without a full appreciation for the nature of the waivered criteria itself.

24. Question Section J SOW Section J Attachment 7. Is the Capabilities Demonstration to be live on the air over WGS into DISA STEP? If so, will the government be providing the configs/COMSEC/GBS feed information to bring it up?

Response The government’s method of testing/evaluation the satellite backhaul aspect of the basic system delivery (e.g., over the air, localized, etc.) is still being de-termined given the ability to secure GBS air time, large SATCOM gateway access, availability of cryptography/communications security materials, etc. If however over the air testing/evaluation is required, the government will pro-vide the required government furnished equipment (GFE).

25. Question Section C SOW Ref 3.3.15. Will the HAIPEs be GFE as stated at the Industry Day?

Response The government’s method of testing/evaluation the satellite backhaul aspect of the basic system delivery (e.g., over the air, localized, etc.) is still being de-termined given the ability to secure GBS air time, large SATCOM gateway access, availability of cryptography/communications security materials, etc. If however over the air testing/evaluation is required, the government will pro-vide the required government furnished equipment (GFE).

26. Question Section C. SOW Ref 3.4 and 3.4.1.1. Upon Contract Award, will the awardee be required to support existing fielded systems? If so, will any existing GFE spares for existing systems be provided to awardee?

Response The government’s expectation for existing fielded systems is to provide maintenance of those systems under existing contracts due to proprietary in-formation and warranties.

27. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3. Section C SOW Paragraph 3 indicates the equipment will be used by USSOCOM and various other combatant com-mands which routinely operate in severe environmental conditions. However, the SOW does not contain any envirnmental performance requirements for temperature, humidity, shock, vibration, salt fog, etc. from MIL-STD-810G.

Satellite terminals procured for these organizations normally include such re-quirements, and terminals previously procurred for this requirement met MIL- STD-810G. Recommed the government incorporate into the SOW requrire-ments, where applicable, MIL-STD-810G. Specifications for the terminals ref-erenced in Attachment 5 and 6 are:

28. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.1. Reference to "(based upon user require-ment)" is vague and is open to interpretation. Recommend the government clarify what user requirements related to the ability the government is seek-ing.

capable assets, and in other scenarios and at other locations, they may em-ploy multiple source, single location (collocated), and highly capable assets.

In response, a vendor’s offering of a single high end and often very expensive basic system may be less attractive to the military’s utility in the first example.

A vendor offering multiple options for employment/configuration, each of which satisfies the basic system’s minimum requirement but allowing flexibility in the form of cost, footprint, capacity, and capability, would be considered

29. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.2.6.1. Reference to "(based upon user require-capable assets, and in other scenarios and at other locations, they may em-ploy multiple source, single location (collocated), and highly capable assets.

In response, a vendor’s offering of a single high end and often very expensive basic system may be less attractive to the military’s utility in the first example.

A vendor offering multiple options for employment/configuration, each of which satisfies the basic system’s minimum requirement but allowing flexibility in the form of cost, footprint, capacity, and capability, would be considered

30. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3. In the opening SOW Paragraph 3, there is ref-erence to minimum requirements and several areas of perfromance en-hancements. The RFP is not clear on how these are both being considered in the evaluation. For example, does meeting performance enhancement re-quirements result in a higher rated management approach? Recommend the government clarify.

Response The RFP confirms how proposals will be evaluated per Section M. Adjectival ratings and the associated criteria for those ratings is included in Section M, Table 1 which will be utilized for evaluation of factor 1 and factor 2.

31. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.2.6.1. Reference to "(based upon user require-capable assets, and in other scenarios and at other locations, they may em-ploy multiple source, single location (collocated), and highly capable assets.

In response, a vendor’s offering of a single high end and often very expensive basic system may be less attractive to the military’s utility in the first example.

A vendor offering multiple options for employment/configuration, each of which satisfies the basic system’s minimum requirement but allowing flexibility in the form of cost, footprint, capacity, and capability, would be considered

32. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.2.8. SOW Paragraph 3.2.8.1 states, "Basic sys-tem power consumption must be 20 Amps or less…" and Section 3.2.8.2 states, "UPS must be capable of sustaining basic system operations." How-ever, this Section does not state how long the UPS must maintain system op-eration or, alternatively, how many AmpHours of power the UPS must supply.

Recommend the government specify the minimum UPS capibility either in AmpHours or hours of system operation.

Response The system’s function is to connect to the satellite network and pass support-ed sensor data during periods (length of time an evaluated criteria) of com-mercial/shore power loss. At a minimum, the UPS must allow an orderly shutdown (in accordance with normal shutdown procedures) of components in response to an unanticipated power outage.

33. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.2.9. SOW Paragreaph 3.2.9 states, "...the basic system setup shall be capable of completion (and demonstrate the ability to pass data) in no longer than four (4) hours…" However, the Section J At-tachment 7 - Capability Demonstration Evaluation Criteria states any setup longer than 61 minutes is "Red," or unacceptable. Recommend the govern-ment clarify the SOW and evaluation criteria dichotomy.

Response Section J Attachment 7 has been updated to reflect revised time tolerances and the revised Section J Attachment 7 is included in Amendment 0001.

34. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.3.5 and 3.8. In SOW Paragraph 3.3.5 and 3.8, it is not clear if the throughput requirement of 2 Mbps is a Threshold require-ment and 25 Mbps is an Objective. Recommend the government specify Threshold and Objective requirement not only for the data throughput re-quirement, but throughout the SOW, when applicable.

Response The basic system must be capable of ingesting no less than 2 Mbps up to 20 Mbps of sensor data from the supported source(s) and be capable of trans-mitting/backhauling the same. There is no threshold and/or objective—the basic system requirement is to support 2 Mbps minimum and no less than 20 Mbps maximum.

35. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.3.10. SOW Paragraph 3.3.10 states, "Although manual configuraton capabilities may satisfy the provisions of this SOW …" Recommend the government state whether or not manual configuration is satisfactory.

Response Section C has been updated in response to this question and the revised SOW dated 7 February 2019 is included in Amendment 0001.

36. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.3.10. SOW Paragreaph 3.3.10 mentions the

Government is seeking "an accredited mechanisim" for automation. There is no definition of the accrediting organization. Recommend the government specify the automation requirement and identify the accreditation organization and/or process.

Response The accreditation mechanism is the DoD’s Risk Management Framework (RMF). The agency for configuration and control is ASTRAT for termi-nal/modem access afforded to Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) and/or the applicable Combat Support Agency (CSA) and/or Geographical Combatant Command Approval Official (AO) for the basic system’s access to supported C2 Services.

37. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.3.18. SOW Paragraph 3.3.18 calls for weight not to exceed 500 pounds. Recommend the government specify individual case weight limitations from MIL-STD-1472B or risk the potential of a single 500 pound case.

Response

There is no individual case and/or limitation on the number of cases. Howev-

38. Question Section C SOW Paragraph 3.8. SOW Paragraph 3.8 states, "The system shall incorporate a suite of MILSATCOM certified (ARSTRAT requirements for WGS certification), or with an approved waiver, tactical Ka terminals…" Since there are no known waivers that would allow a non-ARSTRAT certified VSAT to operate over the WGS satellite constillation, recommend the gov-ernment simplify this paragraph to mandate VSATs be ARSTRAT certified for X-band and Ka-band operation over WGS.

Response There are numerous systems (e.g., terminals and modems) operating under ARSTRAT waivers (some of which have supported southwest asian military operations for more than a decade—example: the primary modem support Digital Video Broadcast-Return Channel Satellite {DVB-RCS}) afforded for a variety of reasons. Considering that, the government does not consider a system operating under an ARSTRAT waiver as any more of a risk than an ARSTRAT certified without a full appreciation for the nature of the waivered criteria itself.

39. Question SOW. The SOW neglects to requre any safety specifications for the equip-ment. Recommend the government include the full suite of safety specifrica-tion to include grounding as a minimum.

40. Question SOW. The SOW neglects to require any wind performance specification. The performance of the VSAT in windy conditions is critical to maintaining contin-uous operational performance. Industry has significant experience delivering VSATs to SOCOM and the COCOM's cited, these termionals are frequently operated in windy conditions, and continuous operation to a minimum wind specification is standard practice. Recommend the government identify mini-mum continuous wind and maximum wind gust conditions under which the VSAT must maintain trhe Threshold data throughput.

41. Question SOW. The SOW neglects to specify reflector range of motion. This is a criti-cal performance specification to ensure the VSAT can point to the selected satellite from the diverse geological locations where these terminals may be operated. Recommend the government specify a minimum horizontal and vertical range of motion.

42. Question SOW. The SOW neglects to specify an internal GPS capability as a require-ment. This is critical for antenna pointing regardless of methodology (manual or auto-acquire). Recommend the government specify a GPS requirement and, consistent with current DoD requirements, specify the ability to input

SAASM GPS.

43. Question SOW. The SOW neglects to specify any reliability requirements. It is a given that the users specified in the requirement will want and need a highly reliable system. While the requirement for spares, FSR's, etc. is clearly indicated, recommend the government specify the fundamental system performance (MTBF, MTTR, Reliability, Operational Availability, etc.).

Response Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and other basic system performance criteria are viewed by the Government as basic performance standards and applicable under the contract quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) for which performance will be evaluated under the Contractor Performance As-sessment Reporting System (CPARS) factors. The government is seeking a preeminently vendor provided solution, without a historically documented government-wide and/or industry-wide standard for expected behav-ior/performance for tactical, deployable sensor data backhaul system.

44. Question SOW. The SOW is unclear as to which requirements are minimum versus performance enhancements. Recommend the government update the SOW to clearly identify each requirement as minimum or performance enhance-ment.

Response The government disagrees with this statement and directs attention to the NOTE under Section 3 which states: “This Section 3 identifies minimum re-quirements for this effort, given the potential 5-year award associated, there are several areas identified herein where performance enhancements are sought.

45. Question Section G Paragraph G.1.5. SOW Paragraph 3.8 states, "The system shall incorporate a suite of MILSATCOM certified (ARSTRAT requirements for WGS certification), or with an approved waiver, tactical Ka terminals…" Sec-tion G Paragraph G.1.5 identifies the Client Representative and office, and states they will "oversee this acquisition." Given that the Client Representa-tive/Office is currently sponsoring a probable bidder's VSAT for ARSTRAT certification, this could be viewed as a conflict of interest and potentially taint the selection process. Recommend the government ensure there is no poten-tial appearance of conflict of interest.

Response All evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the RFP Section M and all respective regulations will be followed.

46. Question Section G Paragraph G.1.5. Section G Paragraph G.1.5 identifies the Client Representative and office, and states they will "oversee the acquisition." The identified Client Representative/Office currently employs one or more support contractors that are actually employees of a probable bidder, which could be viewed as a conflict of interest and potentially taint the selection process.

Recommend the government ensure there is no potential appearance of con-flict of interest.

47. Question (1.1) RFP C.3.3.11, Page 10; (1.2) RFP C.3.3.11.1, Page 10; (1.3) RFP C.3.3.16, Page 10; (1.4) Section J Attachment, SOW Paragraphs 3.3.11 and 3.3.11.1, Page 5. Reference 1.1 states, “Incorporate options for a local video server capability…” (Emphasis added). Reference 1.2 states, “The govern-ment is seeking a local video server with a web interface…”. Reference 1.3.

states, “Provide the ability to host a video web portal on the associated [LAN]”. Reference 1.4 instructs bidders to demonstrate the video server ca-pability. It appears the Government’s intent of these paragraphs is for the bidders to provide a baseline system that is capable of meeting the local vid-eo server requirement. Should the baseline system proposed by bidders sat-isfy the requirements defined by RFP C.3.3.11.1 and RFP C.3.3.16?

SOW dated 7 February 2019 is included in Amendment 0001.

48. Question (2.1) RFP C.3.3.11, Page 10; (2.2) RFP C.3.3.11.1, Page 10; (2.3) RFP

C.3.3.16, Page 10; (2.4) Section J Attachment 7, SOW Paragraphs 3.3.11 and 3.3.11.1, Page 5. Attachment 7 states the proposed system shall demon-strate requirements from references 2.1 and 2.2. Attachment 7 does not in-clude a requirement to demonstrate requirements in reference 2.3. It appears the Government’s intent is for bidders to demonstrate all video server func-tionality (e.g., ability to overlay video on an integrated common operating pic-ture (COP), integrate with multiple IRC services, maintain an open and docu-mented API, view network statistics, and process metadata (ESD/Line 21, MISB 0601, 0903.4)). Does the Government expect bidders to demonstrate all video server functionality (e.g., ability to overlay video on an integrated common operating picture (COP), integrate with multiple IRC services, main-tain an open and documented API, view network statistics and process metadata (ESD/Line 21, MISB 0601, 0903.4)) to satisfy requirements in /references 2.2 and 2.3?

SOW dated 7 February 2019 is included in Amendment 0001. The offeror can choose to demonstrate a local video server solution with as many opera-tional demonstrations as appropriate and/or as many as the demonstration window allows.

49. Question (3.1) RFP M.1, Page 65; Section J Attachment 7. Section M.1 Basis of Award states, “The Government will award an IDIQ to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government utilizing non-price and price related evaluation factors. Only those offerors considered for award will be evaluated to determine best value. In order to be considered for award, an offeror must achieve a successful simulation under Evaluation Factor 1 (emphasis added) detailed below. From those offerors achieving a successful demonstration (emphasis added), the Government will determine best value by evaluating the offeror's management approach (Fac-tor 2), past performance (Factor 3), and price (Factor 4) as described in this Section M. Evaluation factors 2 and 3, when combined, are considered signif-icantly more important than factor 4. As proposals become more equal in terms of factors 2 and 3, factor 4 becomes more important.

Section J Attachment 7 states Outstanding = Blue, Good = Purple, Accepta-ble = Green, Marginal = Yellow, and Unacceptable = Red.

The Government’s intent appears to be to assign a color rating to the offerors based on the performance of the system during the demonstration. However, the emphasized language above from Section M.1 appears to indicate that the system demonstration is simply a pass / fail event. It is unclear whether achieving a Blue, Purple, or Green rating will have any bearing on the bidder evaluation other than allowing for further evaluation on Factors 3-4. 3a. Is “Green” the color rating required to be evaluated as a “successful demonstra-tion”? 3b. Are we correct to assume the Government intends to weigh the color rating from Factor 1 as more important than Factors 2, 3, or 4 for the overall best value evaluation? 3c. Does the government intend to use the demonstration success and the degree to which the demonstration meets threshold and objective requirements to inform the risk assessment?

Response Section M of the RFP has been revised and is included in Amendment 0001.

All evaluations will be conducted in accordance with Section M and the Sec-tion M Table 1 Ratings contains adjectival ratings and the associated criteria for those ratings.

50. Question (4.1) RFP C.3.3.19, Page 10. Reference 4.1 states “Incorporate a GUI soft-ware solution for configuration and monitoring of equipment and connectivity, to include modem, routers, switches, IP routes, and decoders. The configura-tion capability should simplify the configuration actions required by the techni-cian related to entering Satellite Access Authorization and Gateway Access Authorization information”. It appears that the Government’s intent is for bid-ders to demonstrate configuration and monitoring in a manner that supports video backhaul capabilities (e.g., apply transcoder functionality such as en-code / decode, provide source video preview during configuration, and con-figure video server functionality). Does the Government expect bidders to demonstrate 3.3.19 functionality in a manner that supports video backhaul capabilities (e.g., transcoder functionality such as encode / decode, provide source video preview during configuration, and configure video server func-tionality)?

Response The government seeks a tactical, deployable backhaul solution which will support sensor data. From a military utility perspective much of the sensor data support provided will be video—not exclusively, but primarily from a his-torical real world operations perspective.

51. Question (5.1) RFP C.3.3.21, Page 11. Requirement 3.3.21 states “Does the contractor enable the tactical user to leverage enterprise Network Operations (NetOps) capabilities to monitor and manage local system status and operation?” It ap-pears that the Government’s intent is for bidders to leverage the existing dy-namic UDP multicast AISR transport enterprise infrastructure to report opera-tional network status. Does the Government expect bidders to demonstrate a NetOps capability that meets 3.3.21 by enabling the sensor data backhaul suites to report their operational network status to the enterprise using the existing dynamic UDP multicast AISR transport infrastructure?

Response The government seeks a tactical, deployable backhaul solution which will al-low interface with existing enterprise Network Operations (NetOps) monitor-ing/reporting solutions.

52. Question IPSEC Tunnels to support 25Mbps throughput: What is the minimal accepta-ble algorithm that must be applied to the IPSEC tunnels? (3.3.5) a. i.e. AES- 256 with baseline SHA; AES-256 with SHA-256.

Response The government will expect to see the application of Type-1 encryption with Generic Routing Encryption (GRE) for associated tunnels.

53. Question Is there an ability to extend the due date out of the response.

Response The issued solicitation has allotted a sixty (60) day response time and the es-tablished due date of March 1, 2019, by 12:00 p.m. Central Time, remains unchanged.

54. Question While Section C Para 6 requires the contractor after award to notify the gov-ernment of any OCI issues it sees as current or potential, it would seem that an OCI certification should be required at the time of bid submission since there are support contractors in the USSOCOM program office that work for firms that also bid work of this type and are small businesses. Will the Con-tracting Officer take the necessary action to insure that all bidders are on a level playing field and that no OCI issues exist currently? (We believe Sigma Defense has support contractors involved in the documentation for the pro-curement and it appears they were also the incumbent supplier based on the attachments to this Solicitation).

55. Question Will the government allow offerors to include in the price volume terminals which are currently in the ARSTRAT certification process? Since this is a 5 year IDIQ, it would seem that the government would want to keep moving forward with newer technology as it gets certified rather than freezing the technology for 5 years based on what was certified on March 1st, 2019.

Response The technical demonstration must include WGS-certified and/or terminals possessing current ARSTRAT-waived terminals. The vendor may provide information/detail regarding proposed future terminal offerings as long as they have entered into and/or are currently being sponsored by the government for near term ARSTRAT certification and/or waiver, but they cannot be used dur-ing the technical evaluation.