RFCs_8_Mar_18_FINAL_-_tk.pdf

Request for Clarification M67854-18-R-2023

MAGTF COMMON HANDHELD

Current Number

Solicitation Section Document Page/ Paragraph/Line Number

Comment/Questions Government Response

CONTRACT SECTION

1 Instructions to Request Solicitation Supporting Documentation

The document conflicts with the RFP as an Unrestricted Solicitation.

Amendment 0003 identified the removal of the words “small business” from document as the solicitation is not restricted to small businesses.

2 All Which pricing work sheet do you want the vendors to add the software costs to?

Vendors are to provide all cost as part of their price proposal. Please include any applicable software costs under the appropriate CLIN or SubCLIN.

3 All Which pricing work sheet do you want the vendors to add the infrastructure costs to?

See Question #26. Vendors are to provide all cost as part of their price proposal.

If the vendor’s solution requires them to add costs not currently in the CLIN structure, they can add a CLIN.

4 Requirements Traceability Matrix

Can you pls. provide it in Excel format Amendment 0005 will provide the PWS Requirements Matrix in excel format.

5 RFP page 87, item G

When is the due date for proposals Mar 26 or Mar 28? See Amendment 0002

6 Combined Synopsis 2 / Contract Type contract type is a multiple award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Is this a multi award IDIQ?

See RFP Section E-1 (proposal submission), paragraph C (p. 82 of 104)

7 Combined Synopsis 2 / Contract Type

If this is a multi-award IDIQ, please explain how the government will be able to award phase 1 to Vendor A and have the RMF and Capability Packages approved by NSA, and then award a follow on task order to Vendor B (a different vendor) whom has a different approach/solution/technologies to solving the Capability Packages and has a different RMF package?

See RFP Section E-2 (Basis for Award), paragraph 4 (a-c) . Those contractors receiving an award at Gate 2 will submit the RMF and Capability Packages to NSA for approval and then compete, under Gate 3, for award of a production delivery order based on their own approach/solution/technologies. (p. 96 of 104)

8 RFP Section 5.2 Page 91 We will be a subcontractor to multiple primes … to whom should we send our PPQ -- prime or govt. If the later, how will the govt. associate our PPQ with a particular prime’s proposal.

See RFP Section 5.2, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). (p. 91 of 104) Proposals should identify those subcontractors for whom past performance has been requested.

Customers of the prime, joint venture or subcontractor complete and forward the PPQ directly to the Government. PPQs submitted through the prime, if any, will likely be deemed less candid and given less credence than those submitted directly to the Government. A subcontractor may request a customer assess its performance and submit a copy of the PPQ to the Government on behalf of as many primes as have asked that subcontractor to provide past performance information; the customer should send its assessment only once, and the Government will consider the past performance information for each prime that identifies the assessed subcontractor for purposes of past performance. Each prime’s past performance description will include the contract number and other information for the subcontractor’s effort so that that Government should readily be able to coordinate a single PPQ submission with multiple proposals that may reference it.

ques D p. 89, Sec. 5.1. Please clarify "entity" (as used in this context) refers to any teammate/partner within the Prime Offeror's team.

Entity is referring to the prime, a member of a joint venture, or a subcontractor. The key will be for the proposal to clearly identify the role each entity is proposed to perform in completing the contract.

10 D p. 92, Sec. 7.1. If the Prime Contractor is a small business under the primary NAICS Code (334220) but is "other than small" under NAICS Code (541511), is a Small Business Contracting Plan required? If so, is it still expected that 37.5% of the work (minimum) be subcontracted to small businesses that do qualify as small under NAICS 541511?

The NAICS Code for this requirement is 334220 and Section 7.1 of the RFP will be revised. A Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Plan are two different requirements. A Small Business Participation Plan is required for all firms, whether Small or Large.

11 D p. 91, Para. 2 Please clarify what type of documentation is required to satisfy the following; "The Offeror shall submit with its proposal the commercially available price list(s) used for the hardware and supporting materials in compiling this section of its price volume".

The Offeror is to provide the OEM’s price list or other price list available to commercial buyers of the devices proposed for this effort.

12 E1.1, Trabale 2 p. 85 Under Volume I Executive Summary, Max Pages states, "2; N/A for Financial Statement." Please clarify "Financial Statement" as there does not appear to be any further reference to a financial statement requirement in the solicitation.

A Financial Statement is not required. See Revised Language in Amendment 0005

13 E1.1, Sect E p. 87 Regarding the Cross-Reference Requirements Matrix, the RFP states, "it shall be placed at the front of each of the volumes…".

For clarification, is this Cross-Reference Requirements Matrix only required in Volumes III and IV, as per Table 2 on pages 85-86?

Yes. Paragraph E on Page 87 of the RFP has updated the language for the matrices and revised their names in an attempt to avoid confusion. The Requirements Compliance Matrix (Atch 3) will be required only in Volume III, as the PSPEC requirements relate only to the Technical Approach, and the PWS Cross Reference Matrix will be required in both Volumes III and IV, as the PWS requirements relate to both the Technical and Management Approaches.

14 Will the government consider the use of Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP-LOE)

No

15 Exhibit 1 Past Performance Section

Does the USMC require a past performance of the Systems Integrator or the solution they are proposing?

As indicated in RFP Section 5.1, the Government wants past performance information regarding only the prime and whichever entity is performing the NSA Integrator role, whether that is the prime, itself, or a subcontractor.

RFP SECTION

16 RFP

CLIN 0001

Page 4 Is the initial delivery 90 days ADC and any additional device orders 90 days ARO? Can the Government explain the difference between ARO and ADC?

Initial and future orders are required 90 days After Receipt of Order (ARO). Because the resulting contract will be an ID/IQ, and the term After Delivery of Contract (ADC) applies to a Fixed Price Contract, both terms ARO and ADC shall be used interchangeably to mean within 90 days after receipt of an order.

`17 RFP

CLIN 0003

Page 5 Can the government specify the delivery time for Wireless Access Points?

90 days ADC

18 RFP

CLIN 0016

RFP Page 11

Offeror may propose different types of software for the various platforms, can offeror create sub-CLINs to price the various software licenses?

Yes. Also, see Question 2.

19 RFP

Section E-1.1 Offeror’s Proposal Requirements;

Paragraph D.6 Lines 5-8

The RFP states “All the Volumes on CD-ROM discs, with the exception of the Price Volume, shall be in a searchable MS Office 2010 compatible format. The Price Volume shall be in MS Excel format”. The Government released Attachment 3 (MCH RCM PSPEC) in PDF format.

Will the Government please confirm offeror’s Attachment 3 (MCH RCM PSPEC) response shall be submitted in MS Office? If not, what is the appropriate electronic format for Attachment 3?

Yes, Offeror is to submit attachment in MS Office format. The Requirements Compliance Matrix RCM will be provided in Excel format.

20 RFP

Volume I, Executive Summary

Paragraph D Line 5

The RFP instructs: “Provide the same information for all major subcontractors to be used.”

How is the term “major subcontractors” defined?

Amendment 0005 will remove the word “Major” from Paragraph D Line 5.

21 Attachment_4_Pricin g_Worksheet_-

_MCH

Worksheet "Instructions"

The excel file name "Attachment_4_Pricing_Worksheet_- _MCH" identifies itself as Attachment 5 in the worksheet instructions.

Is Attachment 4 missing?

Where should Offerors provide pricing for each of the CLINs?

No.

Offerors are to provide detailed pricing as part of their pricing proposal volume.

Attachment 4, the Pricing Worksheet, will be revised. There is no missing attachment.

Pricing should be submitted in the revised worksheet in Volume 6.

22 Attachment_4_Pricin g_Worksheet_-

_MCH

Worksheet "Instructions"

The instruction requires the Prime Offeror to enter Labor Categories with Non-Burdened Rates fixed for 5 years as if the contract will be awarded as a cost-plus contract. This conflicts with the "Combined Synopsis/Solicitation document which states the contract will be awarded as a firm fixed price commercial contract. To allow an "apples to apples" pricing comparison, we recommend the pricing instruction be changed to " Please provide a firm fixed unit price for each of the 45 Item Numbers (CLINs) listed in the PDF document "RFP_MCH_M67854-18-R-2023" starting in page 4 through page 25.

See Revised RFP, Amendment 0005.

23 PWS PG 91 Section 7.1

The majority of this procurement is for Android phones that are available only from a large business Original Equipment Manufacturer. Other portions of the work efforts are significantly smaller in proportion to overall contract value. Would the government therefore consider changing the language in the RFP to allow offerors to provide commercial subcontracting plans to satisfy all the small business requirements of this solicitation?

No. Offerors proposing a Small Business Subcontracting Plan below the Government’s objectives is required per RFP Section 7.2 to explain in detail why they are unable to meet the objectives

24 PWS PG 91 Section 7.1

The solicitation requires both a SB Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business Participation Plan, and goals are listed and required for all the SB classifications. The majority of this procurement is for Android phones that are available only from a large business manufacturer. Would the government therefore consider allowing contractors to eliminate the equipment costs for the phones when calculating the total amount to be subcontracted for the purpose of proposing SB subcontracting goals? This would allow for more realistic and attainable goals, since the SB categories would not be skewed by a disproportionately large and necessary equipment purchase from a large business manufacturer.

No. See response to Question 23.

RFP Section 7.1 requires both large and small businesses to address their strategies for utilizing Small Business concerns in the development of its SB Participation Plan.

GENERAL

25 All All Does the government anticipate adding mobility services for the full system lifecycle (e.g., mobile support services, enterprise mobility management, mobile application services, mobile collaboration services, device services) to the acquisition?

Not at this time.

26 All All There is no description of the infrastructure (e.g., mobility gateway) that supports the classified mobility solution.

Wireless access points (WAP) are indicated to provide secure last-mile connectivity. Infrastructure to establish virtual private networks (VPN), manage access control, host MDM, host and/or provide interfaces for enterprise services, etc. and how it is hosted and managed (e.g., on premise, data center, CONUS/OCONUS) is not indicated.

Does the solicitation include supporting infrastructure?

Your response needs to propose all components of your solution to meet the capability package and include requirements that would be leveraged on existing USMC infrastructure.

The USMC plans to leverage existing servers within the Combat Operation Center and leverage the 117G radio. However, we do not want to unnecessarily constrain proposed solutions.

27 All All If the answer is yes, which infrastructure items will be leveraged or which Program of Record is going to host the required MDM to support the EUD in a tactical enclave?

See response to question 26. The intent is to maximize existing USMC POR infrastructure.

28 All Follow on question to #26

If the solicitation does not support infrastructure or leverage an existing POR to host the MDM that is going to support the management and application distribution of the EUDs, do we need to provide the server infrastructure to support the MDM hosting requirements?

See response to question 26. The intent is

29 All Follow on question to #26

If we need to provide the server infrastructure to support the MDM hosting requirements, do we need to include the pricing of the server infrastructure?

See response to question 26. The intent is to

30 General General Concept of Operations

Can the Government please provided Concept of Operation, Operational View's OV's, and Technical Overviews

Not available at this time.

31 General Question All Is it the Governments intent that the Prime Offeror be a CSfC Trusted Integrator or, can the offeror have a Teaming Partner that is a registered CSfC Trusted Integrator to meet this requirement?

The prime, a joint venturer (who is, therefore, also part of the prime) or one of the named sub-contractors must be a registered CSfC Trusted Integrator.

PWS SECTION

32 PWS 11 / 4.3.1.3 There are two possible CPs, which can support the tactical enclave. They are very different - 1) Mobile Access CP (MACP) or 2) Campus WLAN CP. Tactical and Intelligence Community solutions typically comply with the Campus WLAN CP, whereas garrison solutions typically comply with the MACP. The applicable CP will determine the architecture.

Which CP does the government feel is applicable?

The government is not specifying a particular CP. The vendor shall propose the best method to meet requirements.

33 PWS 11 / 4.3.1.4 Because some of the programs of records listed which the MCH will be interoperable with e.g. Joint Battle Command Platform (JBC-P) Family of Systems, the Joint Tactical COP Workstation, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), The Target Handoff System (THS), and various other USMC MAGTF C2 and Close Air Support (CAS) platforms the need to leverage multicast / broadcast technologies. The NSA MACP does not support multicast / broadcast technologies, it actually is impossible to leverage multicast / broadcast with the MACP.

Please explain how the Government intends on supporting a deviation / hybrid solution to the MACP which must be approved by NSA?

We will evaluate any proposed Capability Package deviations in accordance with Addendum 2 of the RFP.

34 PWS Table 2, Page 14 / 12

The MCH EUDs shall provide an API to select between SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED screen banners. Does the Government intend to have the MCH access the MCEN-N and MCEN-S on a single EUD?

No. This will not be a dual domain device.

Devices may access either the MCEN-N or MCEN-S. Once used on the MCEN-S it will not revert to use as a MCEN-N device.

35 PWS 18 / 4.4.4 Is it the Government’s intent that the SDK be able to produce an application that will produce a National Information Assurance Partnership Application Protection Profile (NIAP APP) compliant application?

The government needs an SDK that will allow development of applications to run on the vendor’s proposed solution.

36 PWS 18 / 4.4.4 Is it the Government’s intent that the SDK be able to produce a NIAP APP Compliant report for conformity and be used the USMC AO / DAA for authorization created application to run on a MCH EUD?

See response to question 35.

PWS 18 / 4.4.4 The contractor shall provide a MCH Integrated Platform Software Development Kit (SDK) including the software tools and documentation necessary to support application developer access to system functionality and data while maintaining security solution protections in accordance with established DoD and Industry Standard Software Assurance practices.

This comment explains the purpose of the SKD but not the functions the SDK is required to perform. Please explain what functions are required of the SDK?

See response to question 35.

38 Combined Synopsis 2 / Contract PSPECType

Does the Government intend on submitting multiple RMF and Capability packages to the USMC DA/AAO and NSA in order to support multi IDIQ vendor awards?

The government intends to submit multiple CSfC registration packages to the USMC DA/AAO and the NSA. The government intends to submit only one full RMF package, for the final vendor.

39 PWS 3.2 Is the server infrastructure GFE or provided by a POR. See response to Question 26.

40 PWS 3.2 Will the Server Subsystem be required to meet the safety, usability, MTBF, MTTR, Noise, Visible Light, etc.

requirements as listed in the PSPEC?

All components for the vendor-supplied solution must comply with Table 1 of the PWS.

41 PWS 3.2 If the Server Subsystem resides in a shelter, vehicle or command post, can the MIL-STD environmental requirements be met though use of the transit case, or be provided by the shelter, rather than provided by the components in operation?

See response to Questions 26 and 40.

42 PWS 3.2 Can the government provide specifications on the Server Subsystem, which is not outlined in the RFP?

See response to Question 26.

43 PWS 3.2 Can the government describe where the server infrastructure resides, and what type (and performance) of connectivity is available between the Access Point and Server Subsystem?

See response to Question 26.

44 PWS 3.2 If the Server Subsystem will be acquired through this program, will the Server Subsystem be required to meet all of the same MIL-STD environmental standards as the EUDs?

See response to Questions 26 and 40.

45 PWS 3.2 Will the Server Subsystem be required to meet all of the MIL-DTL connector requirements?

See response to Question 40.

46 PWS 11 / 4.3.1.4 How does the government intend to support the multicast applications proposed in the list, since CSfC does not support multicast today?

The government is asking the vendor to propose a solution.

47 PWS/PSPEC 4.4.5/3.2.11.1 to 3.2.11.26

Is the MCH WLAN solution considered a separate system from the MCH System’s Server Subsystem?

It depends on the vendor’s proposed solution.

48 PWS 4.4.5 NSA CSfC certified crypto and security components (VPN gateways, Firewalls, WLAN access controllers) require specific hardware, not just software to be loaded on generic servers. Would the government consider proposals that include host certified, rugged, small form factor hardware/appliance solutions for those components?

See response to Question 26.

49 PWS 4.3.1.1 Can the Government confirm that all prime contractors must be CSfC Trusted Integrators?

See response to Question 31.

50 PWS 3.1.4 The PWS in section 3.1 states SSC-LANT will develop the mission planner in the Server Subsystem called out in section 3.1.4. How will the Contractor's selection of EUD affect the mission planner solution SSC-LANT delivers for the Server Subsystem? Is there a role the Contractor must play in helping design and integrate the mission planner?

The interface specification for the vendor’s proposed EUD will contribute to SSC LANT’s development of the mission planner.

51 PWS 3.1.5 The PWS in section 3.1 states SSC-LANT will develop the Expeditionary Interface Subsystem called out in section

3.1.5. How will the Contractor's selection of EUD affect the

components SSC-LANT delivers for the Expeditionary Interface Subsystem? Is there a role the Contractor must play in helping design and integrate the Expeditionary Interface Subsystem?

The interface specification for the vendor’s proposed EUD will contribute to SSC LANT’s development of the Expeditionary Interface.

52 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2, Section 4.4.2

Section 2 states:

The contract Period of Performance (PoP) will begin upon contract award and continue for 5 years consisting of a base year and four 12 month periods. The base year will be used to support the EMD phase, while the final 4 years will support Operational Testing (OT), fielding, and sustainment.

This statement appears to contradict Section 4.4.2 which states:

Production units will be used by the Government to support OT in year one of the contract and fielding in years two through five.

Could the government clarify Figure 1 by adding notional dates? It is unclear whether Year 1 will encompass both the DT and OT phases, or if Year 2 will be the start of the OT phase.

Section 2 is accurate; Section 4.2.2 has been revised. Dates are TBD.

53 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Would the government consider pre-authorization work (after down-select) to accelerate the schedule? For example: Could the DT phase begin before D0-01 delivery? Similarly, could the OT period begin before D0- 02 delivery?

No.

54 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Will the government pay for NIAP testing of components to either initially establish their CSfC eligibility in Year 1, or to maintain it in Years 2-5?

Vendor can incorporate those costs in their proposal under the appropriate CLIN, which will be evaluated in accordance with Addendum 2.

55 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Are there any restrictions on work being performed by a foreign entity, specifically Australian?

The RFP includes Clause 52.225-5 and Amendment 0005 will add Clause 52.225-6.

Offerors shall review and comply with these Clauses.

56 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Is there a need for voice COMMS to be provided by the EUD, or will the PRC radios be used for voice?

Refer to the PWS for EUD requirements.

57 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Will the CONOPS require that the SECRET tactical network described in the PSPEC have access to SIPRNET or any other classified DoD network?

The PSPEC requires the device to connect to a secret tactical network.

58 PWS Attachment 1 Section 2 Will the government consider the use of Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP-LOE)

No.

59 PWS Attachment 1 4.3.4.3 In section 4.3.4.3 of the PWS (page 17), it states that cybersecurity patches are to be provided. However, it doesn’t outline the timeframe around the submittal of these patches. Is there a 21 day constraint or some other limiting factor? In the same PWS section, it also states that the “latest” patches are to be incorporated prior to delivery of the EUD, WAP, and Server Subsystem. Is there a time frame of number of days before delivery where a patch is not required to be included in the delivery such as “patch issued from vendor 7 days prior to delivery”?

Patches will be provided in accordance with

PWS 4.3.4.

60 PWS Attachment 1 4.4.5 In section 4.4.5 of the PWS (page 18), it asks for a “Secure Host Baseline” but doesn’t outline any deliverable for software, just the Software Version Description (SVD).

Is there a CDRL for the actual software itself?

Is there a desired frequency for delivery?

No, there is not a CDRL. software will be ordered as required in accordance with CLINs 0014 and 0015.

61 PWS Page 7 Section 4.1.6 Subsections

4.1.6.1. & 4.1.6.2

How many Technical Interchange Meetings, and Management Reviews does the government expect per quarter?

Not known at this time.

62 Performance Work Statement

Section 3.2 Proposed Solution /Pg. 88

In the event that emerging technologies can meet the USMC requirements, would the USMC sponsor NIAP certification?

DOD Sponsor is not required for NIAP certification.

63 PWS Page 19, Table Table 2

Table 2 MCH System Design Criteria, Item 12 The MCH EUDs shall provide an API to select between SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED screen banners.

Does the Government intend to use a device as both Unclassified and Classified and/or dual persona

See Response to Question 34.

64 PWS 4.3.4 Cybersecurity Will the Government provide the network in which the MCH will connect and what controls will be inherited.

I.E.MCEN or JIE

MCH must connect to the MCEN. Inherited controls will be determined as cybersecurity matures.

65 PWS 4.3.4 Cybersecurity Question: Is the Governments intent for a Type Accreditation for the MCH platform, system, or components?

The Government is pursuing a Type accreditation for the MCH system.

66 RFP 100 / E7.D Can the Government please elaborate on which aspects of the Component Management Schedule will be evaluated?

Not beyond what is stated in Section E-7 (Description of Gate 2 Evaluation Factors), Factor 1 Technical Approach, paragraph d.

67 Attachment 5, System Volume Pricing

How many Sample and Production Wireless Access Points are expected to be purchased? Is there a table similar to the ones for the Small and Large form factors in Attachment 5, System Volume Pricing?

Wireless Access Point: Sample 30; production quantity is unknown (ID/IQ). There is no established table for volume pricing for Wireless Access Points.

RFP SECTION

68 RFP

CLIN 0001

Page 4 CLIN 0001 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e.

4.3.x) of the PWS that applies? There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

The PWS clearly identifies what is required for

CLIN 0001.

69 RFP

CLIN 0002

Page 4 CLIN 0002 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e.

4.3.x) of the PWS that applies? There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

The PWS clearly identifies what is required for

CLIN 0002.

70 RFP

CLIN 0003

Page 5 Can the government specify the delivery time for Wireless Access Points?

See response to Questions 16 and 17.

71 RFP

CLIN 0003

Page 5 CLIN 0003 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3 and 4.5. Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e. 4.3.x) of the PWS that applies? There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

The PWS clearly identifies what is required for

CLIN 0003.

72 RFP

CLIN 0003

Page 5 CLIN 0003 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3 and 4.5. Does section 4.4 also applies? If so, what specific subsection applies?

Yes, Section 4.4 applies. The PWS clearly identifies what is required for CLIN 0003. See CLIN 0003 description in Amendment 0005.

73 RFP

CLIN 0009

Page 8 CLIN 0009 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e.

4.3.x) of the PWS that applies? There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

The PWS clearly identifies what is required for

CLIN 009.

74 RFP

CLIN 0010

Page 8 CLIN 0010 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e.

4.3.x) of the PWS that applies?

There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

The PWS clearly identifies what is required for

CLIN 0010.

75 RFP

CLIN 0011

Page 9 CLIN 0011 States Supply is IAW PWS 4.3 and 4.5. Can the government specify subsection (level three, i.e. 4.3.x) of the PWS that applies? There are subsections that apply to sample delivery and others that apply to production delivery.

Section 4.4 also applies. The PWS clearly identifies what is required for CLIN 0011.

76 RFP

CLIN 0013

Page 10 When is the Software Development Kit (SDK) to be delivered?

90 days ADC per page 27 of RFP.

77 RFP

CLIN 0014

Page 10 Should CLIN 14 also reference IAW PWS 4.3? The PWS already references the applicable sections (i.e., PWS 4.4.5 references other PWS sections, including Section 4.3) and clearly identifies what is required for CLIN 0014.

78 RFP

Page 11 Various license requirements may be needed for renewals and maintenance and can vary depending on each solution such as devices, wireless access points, security, and CSfC. The pricing aspects may also vary from per device and or per network. The CLIN request a single unit price and does not provide for different solutions and products needed.

Can the Offeror create sub-CLINs to address software maintenance warranty renewals for the various products and solutions?

Yes. Also, see Question 2.

79 RFP

CLIN 0026

CDRL A005

CDRL A005

CLIN 0026 states “The contractor shall deliver Software Version Description under CDRL A005 IAW PWS 4.3.4.3 and 4.7.5”. However, Block 5 Contract Reference shows the PWS paragraphs as 4.7.5, 4.3.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5.

Will the Government please update CLIN 0026 on RFP Page 16 to reflect the additional PWS paragraphs?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0005 for change to RFP CLIN 26 to reference: PWS 4.7.5, 4.3.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5.

80 RFP

CLIN 0028

CDRL A00D

CDRL A00D

CLIN 0028 states “The Contractor shall provide Program Management, Program Protection, and Technical Support / Corrective Actions Services IAW PWS Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.6”; however, CDRL A00D Block A Contract Line Item No. states 0028, Block 2 states Requirements Traceability Matrix, and Block 5 Contract Reference states PWS paragraph 4.7.7 (which is “reserved” according to the PWS;”

Will the Government please clarify which PWS paragraphs should be included in CLIN 0028? Also, for CDRL A00D will the Government please insert the correct CLIN in Block A, Title of Data Item in Block 2, and Contract References in Block 5?

CDRL A00D –deleted from solicitation.

81 RFP

CLIN 0029

Page 18 CRDL B001

CLIN 0029 states “The Contractor shall deliver Monthly Status Reports under CDRL B001 IAW PWS 4.1.4, CRDL B001 4.1.6.3, 4.2.1.4, 4.3.1.4; however, CRDL B001 Block 5 subsequent Block 16 references PWS paragraphs 4.1.5, 4.1.7.3, 4.2.1.4, 4.3.1.4. PWS 4.1.5 does not indicate a government deliverable be submitted, also PWS 4.1.7.3 does not exist.

Will the government please confirm that the PWS paragraphs associated with CLIN 0029 and CDRL B001 should be 4.1.4, 4.1.6.3, 4.2.1.4, 4.3.1.4?

If confirmed, will the Government please update CRDL B001 to reflect the correct PWS paragraphs?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0005 for Change CDRL B001 Block 5-sub-16 to 4.1.4, 4.1.6.3, 4.2.1.4, 4.3.1.4

82 RFP

CLIN 0030 CRDL

B002

CRDL B002

CLIN 0030 states “The Contractor shall deliver the Program Protection Implementation Plan under CDRL B002 IAW PWS 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.15; however, CRDL B002 Block 5 references PWS paragraphs 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.5. PWS paragraphs 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.3 also reference CDRL B002.

Will the government please confirm that the PWS paragraphs associated with CLIN 0030 and CDRL B002 should be 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.5, 4.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.3?

If confirmed, will the Government please update CLIN 0030 and CRDL B001 to reflect the correct PWS paragraphs?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0005 for Change RFP CLIN 30 to ref: PWS 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.5, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3

Change CRDL B002 Block 5 to 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.5, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3

83 RFP

Section E-1.1 Offeror’s Proposal Requirements;

Paragraph C.1 Lines 5&6

Subsection C. Content and Organization of Proposals states “Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in Volume II – Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers.” Volume II is currently titled Mandatory Requirements-Pass/Fail with no requirements for Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers rationale.

We suggest that Exceptions, Deviations, and Waivers more properly belongs in Volume VIII, Contract Information.

See revised RFP, Amendment 0005

84 RFP

Section E-1.1 Offeror’s Proposal Requirements;

Subsection H Instruction for Preparation of Proposal Content;

Volume VIII Contract Information

Lines 1&2

Subsection 2. Section 8.1, Model Contract states “Each page of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the following legend at the bottom: Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

Will the government clarify this requirement, specifically what constitutes the Model Contract?

Please confirm that this is the only document that is to contain the Source Selection Designation.

As stated in RFP Section 8.1, The Model Contract is the “signed copy of the Base Contract’s SF1449, with blocks 17 through 21 completed and with all Amendments acknowledged.” In addition, Offerors shall include all RFP Clauses which require contractor “Fill-ins” and “Each page of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the legend.”

85 RFP

Evaluation; E-7 Description of Gate 2 Evaluation Factors, Factor 2

Paragraph Factor 2 (b) Approach to Quality Management Lines 1-3

Management Approach subsection b: Approach to Quality Management states “The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Quality Management Plan to determine whether its internal controls and procedures support successful execution of the MCH testing and sustainment of fielded devices based on Section 4.1.7 of the PWS”.

PWS Section 4.1.7 does not exist, we believe the correct reference should be to 4.1.5.

Will the Government please confirm the correct PWS paragraph should be 4.1.5?

If confirmed, will the Government please revise the requirement to show PWS 4.1.5?

Yes, see revised RFP Amendment 0005.

86 RFP

Evaluation; E-7 Description of Gate 2 Evaluation Factors, Factor 2

Paragraph Factor 2 (d) Approach to Configuration Management Line 4

Management Approach subsection d: Approach to Configuration Management states “….configuration documentation and other related areas as described in Section 4.1.5”. PWS Section 4.1.5 is for Quality Management, we believe the correct reference should be to 4.1.3.

Will the Government please confirm the correct PWS paragraph should be 4.1.3?

If confirmed, will the Government please revise the requirement to show PWS 4.1.3?

Yes, see revised RFP Amendment 0005.

87 Section 5.1 p. 89 Would Government consider changing verbiage to; "The prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of two, and a maximum of five, recent and relevant contract efforts, with a maximum of three past performance citations provided by subcontractors"?

No.

88 CDRL B003 CDRL B003 CLIN 0031 states “The contractor shall deliver the Configuration Management Plan under CDRL B003 IAW PWS 4.1.3.2 however, CDRL B003 Block 5 Contract Reference states PWS paragraph 4.1.4.2.

Will the Government please confirm CDRL B003 should reference PWS paragraph 4.1.3.2?

If confirmed, will the Government please update CDRL B003 to reflect the correct PWS paragraph?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0005 for Change CRDL B003 Block 5 to 4.1.3.2.

89 VOLUME III:

TECHNICAL

APPROACH (GATE

2)

Section 3.2 Proposed Solution /Pg. 88

It’s our understanding that a Capability Package (CP) is an end-to-end network solution (black network, grey network, red network) that meets CSfC controls. However, the requirements of the RFP do not ask the offerer to deliver all components associated with a full end to end solution as expected when implementing a CSfC CP. This will make it difficult for an offeror to address needed deviations within their registration package submission. Is it the Government's intent for the offeror to only address requirements and deviations specific to what is asked for in the RFP (i.e., EUD, MDM, and WAP), or should the offeror design, submit, and price an offering to address all CP requirements (i.e. Intrusion Detection System, PKI, Continuous Monitoring, etc.)?

The question mischaracterizes the RFP. If you require additional detail, please refer to the PWS. The vendor should propose a fully integrated solution for a CP as required by the

PWS.

90 VOLUME III:

TECHNICAL

APPROACH (GATE

2)

Section 3.2 Proposed Solution /Pg. 88

Can the Government provide the expected hardware and software list for those components not requested of the offeror for the full end-to-end solution? This information is required in order for the offeror to provide expected deviations for the full end-to-end solution and so that the

See Response to Questions 26 & 89.

offeror can make a more informative decision on what capability package to choose.

91 VOLUME III:

MANDATORY

REQUIREMENTS

(GATE 1)

Section 2.1 CSfC Trusted Integrator /Pg.

The solicitation states that the Offeror shall provide documentation of its current status as a trusted integrator.

Is it a requirement for Gate 1 that the Prime contractor is a CSfC trusted integrator?

Yes. See Response to Question 31.

PSPEC SECTION

92 System Performance Spec.

3.2.1 Environmental

3.2.1.1, page 17

What is the meaning of T=O spread throughout the PSPEC and RCM?

It means threshold equals objective, meaning that the threshold and objective requirements are the same.

93 PSPEC 3.2.2.22 The PSPEC calls out Wi-Fi infrastructure, but the EUD requires interoperability with other radios types. It further calls out EUD support for Bluetooth and “Cellular”. WLAN CP only works with Wi-Fi.

Does the government require CSfC DIT for radio infrastructure other than or in addition to Wi-Fi?

If so, can the government clarify that MA CP compliance for the EUD is required?

See response to Question 32. The vendor is not required to address DIT protection for backhaul network, due to fact the TYPE-I encryption is provided by our radios. The vendor is required to address DIT protection between the tactical radio and the EUD.

94 PSPEC If MA CP above is required, does the government require the EUD to have no dedicated outside VPN GW per MA CP? If so, does the government have plans to pursue NSA TLS App and Server NIAP certifications for all listed applications?

See response to Questions 26. 32, and 89.

95 PSPEC 3.3.4.19 Does the government require the EUD to support CSfC-certified DIT over the cellular connection?

The government is not specifying the waveform for wireless connectivity between the EUD and the wireless access point..

96 PSPEC + The government requires NIAP compliance to terminate DIT at the infrastructure, per MA CP or WLAN CP, but does not provide specifications for that equipment and does not ask for proposers to propose it. Without a definition of the equipment and without a specification for how it’s configured, the EUD requirements are hard to finalize.

Where does the infrastructure equipment come from –

GFE/POR?

Can the government provide a specification to the make/model and configuration of the equipment?

See response to Question 26.

97 PSPEC Follow on question to #96 3.2.2.4

If the proposer is asked to provide that equipment, can the government clarify the CLIN, delivery timeframe, etc.

See responses to Questions 3 and 26.

98 PSPEC 3.2.2.24 CSfC requires Blue Tooth (and NFC) to be disabled unless running through outer VPN. This implies the system must be configured to meet MA CP requirements, not WLAN CP requirements.

Please confirm this is your understanding.

See response to Question 32.

99 PSPEC 3.2.2.26/27 What type of wireless connection is required according to the line item?

See the response to Question 95.

100 PSPEC 3.2.2.103 to 3.2.2.108

Where is the log analysis tool to be hosted? See the response to Question 26.

101 PSPEC 3.2.7.1 to 3.2.7.21

For tactical radio wired links, does the government require CSfC encryption on the EUD?

The vendor solution must comply with PWS Table 1, which includes security requirements.

102 PSPEC 3.2.7.1 to 3.2.7.21

For tactical radio wireless links does the government require CSfC encryption on the EUD?

The vendor solution must comply with PWS Table 1, which includes security requirements.

103 PSPEC 3.2.8.1 to 3.2.8.4

Does the Server Subsystem need to meet these requirements?

The vendor solution must comply with PWS Table 1, which includes survivability requirements.

104 PSPEC 4.4.5/3.2.11.1 to 3.2.11.26

The MCH WLAN solution does not appear to be acquired in the CLIN, except in the form of software for the “secure host baseline” for various components such as the WLAN authentication system listed in 3.2.11.5.

How does the government anticipate hosting the CSfC components that do not reside on the WLAN access system?

See response to Question 26.

105 PSPEC General Question

Do the requirements in PSPEC apply to all hardware in all sub-systems? EUD, servers, access points, interconnects and hubs are disparate hardware devices that will differ in the costs, lead times, and SWAP impacts to meet these specs.

The Vendor solution must comply with PWS Table 1.

106 PSPEC 3.2.4.2-3.2.4.10,

3.2.4.12- 3.2.4.13, 3.2.5.1-3.2.5.2, 3.2.6.1

Is it the Government's responsibility or the Contractor's responsibility to verify the PSPEC requirements in DO-1?

Is the verification of the PSPEC requirements completed as part of DT prior to Gate 3?

For instance, some human factors requirements specify verification by demonstrating compliance via a user jury.

Another instance is where some of the reliability and maintainability requirements call out testing the MCH System at a variety of mission exercises and test events.

The government will assess vendor’s proposed solutions against requirements through Developmental Testing prior to Gate 3.

107 PSPEC 3.2.1.1 through 3.2.1.3

The +130°F maximum and -40°F minimum operating temperature threshold requirements in the PSPEC exceed the capabilities of known COTS EUDs.

Can these threshold requirements be revised to allow consideration of COTS?

Requirements remain the same. Vendors should propose their solution that best meets the requirements. Testing will characterize COTS capabilities to understand temperature operating range limitations.

108 PSPEC 3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.5 The +158°F maximum and -40°F minimum storage temperature threshold requirements in the PSPEC exceed the capabilities of known COTS EUDs.

Can these threshold requirements be revised to allow consideration of COTS?

Requirements remain the same. Vendors should propose their solution that best meets the requirements. Testing will characterize COTS capabilities to understand temperature operating range limitations.

109 PSPEC 3.2.1.11 through 3.2.1.20

The EMI requirements in the PSPEC call out the entire requirements for each MIL-STD-461 method.

Can these be tailored to more precisely specify what requirements are to be met for each method?

For instance, CE101, CE102, and CS101 may not apply to the EUD Platform sub-system since the EUD is battery-powered (no power leads on which to conduct emissions).

Assume each would apply to servers in Server Subsystem and wireless access point and mission planner hardware in Peripheral Subsystem.

3.2.1 requirements are applicable to the entire system.

110 PSPEC 3.2.1.33 The PSPEC calls out the standard solar loading requirement.

Does this apply at the maximum specified operating temperature?

See 4.2.1.33 in the PSPEC.

111 PSPEC 3.2.2.8X How often does customer plan to upgrade the EUD OS? As required for security and performance.

112 PSPEC 3.2.2.8X Is it the Government's expectation that the offeror will be delivering each EUD OS update on a new custom built

ROM?

Each EUD OS delivery must comply with applicable requirements in PWS Table 1.

113 PSPEC All The System Performance Specification for MCH is dated 14Nov2016.

Can the Government confirm that all specifications required for the MCH are current and complete?

Yes, they are current and complete.

114 PSPEC 3.2.11 Are there any required physical specifications for the WLAN subsystem?

There is no WLAN subsystem. Please see the PWS for requirements for the Wireless Access Point.

115 PSPEC 4.3.2.28 Is Data-in-Transit capability only required during USB tethered operation and provided solely by the tactical radios?

No. See Response to Question 93.

116 PSPEC 3.2.2.74 Will a ROM with all known USB and serial drivers be sufficient?

That needs to be evaluated by the vendor to determine if this approach will best meet MCH PWS requirements.

117 PSPEC 3.2.4.16 Will the Government provide referenced GFP Body Armor with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts, Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts, Deltoid and Auxiliary Protection, and USMC Modular Tactical Vest (MTV)/Improved MTV inserts to the contractor as GFE for use in testing?

No.

118 PSPEC 3.2.7.1 through 3.2.7.6, and 3.2.7.8, .10, .12, .14, .16, .18

Will the Government provide referenced devices (listed below) as GFE to the Offeror to ensure interoperability?

- Common Laser Rangefinder-Integrated Capability (CLRF-IC) target location device

- Common Laser Rangefinder-Integrated Capability (CLRF-IC) target location device

- Enhanced-JTAC Laser Target Designator (E-JTAC LTD) target location device

- Directorate-approved, Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM)-based GPS receiver

- Soldier ISR Receiver (SIR)

- PRC-117G tactical radio

- PRC-117F tactical radio

- PRC-150 tactical radio

- PRC-152 tactical radio

- PRC-152A tactical radio

- DTCS (RO) tactical radio

- Fortress ES210 tactical radio

No.

119 PSPEC 3.2.7.6 Since the PRC-117G requires a COMSEC account, will the Government authorize an account for Offerors who are awarded contracts?

No.

120 Attachment 3 –

RCM_PSPEC

3.3.4.38 Do both the large and small form factors require 32GB of non-removable memory?

Yes, per PSPEC definitions table.

121 Attachment 3 –

RCM_PSPEC

3.2.1.11 Will the government be providing testing of hardware for

MIL-STD-461G?

Yes, following Delivery Order 1, in accordance with the PSPEC, the government will test the full system.

122 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 68, 3.3.4.35

Requirement states "The MCH EUD shall support the use of an external keyboard via either a wired or wireless connection to the EUD. (T=O)"

Is this requirement for both the small and large form factor

EUD?

Yes. As defined in PSPEC Section 6.3 Definitions, “The End User Device (EUD) refers to both the PDA and Tablet form factor. When further delineation is required the requirement will call out the EUD PDA or EUD Tablet.”

(Page 538)

123 Exhibit 2 Performance Specification

Page 68, 3.3.4.36

Requirement states "The MCH EUD shall receive input from a stylus." Is the government requiring that both the small and large form factor EUDs have a stylus?

No, we are requiring that both be able to receive input from a stylus.

124 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 68, 3.3.4.37

Requirement states "The MCH EUD shall support the use of an external monitor via either a wired or wireless connection to the EUD. (T=O)"

Is the government requiring that both the small and large form factor EUDs support the use of an external monitor via either a wired or wireless connection?

Yes. See response to Question 122.

125 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 70,

3.3.4.67 & 3.3.4.68

Requirement states "The MCH EUD shall have sufficient internal power, without the aid of external charging inputs, to operate in a continuous video playback loop test for 12 hours with screen brightness and volume at 50%. (T)" and "The MCH EUD should have sufficient internal power, without the aid of external charging inputs, to operate in a continuous video playback loop test for 36 hours with screen brightness and volume at 50%. (O)"

What does the government consider as an external charging input> As an example, would the government consider a ruggedized case with battery an "external charging input"

It would be acceptable to use a case that includes a battery as long as all the EUD requirements are met.

126 Exhibit 2

Specification

Pages 17 & 18, 3.2.1

Is it the government's intent to drive towards a single purpose-built solution, with the understanding there are no COTS based solutions that can meet the environmental requirements?

The vendor needs to propose the solution that best meets the requirements. Testing will characterize COTS capabilities to understand environmental limitations Note: a ruggedized case may be included per the PSPEC to help meet environmental requirements.

127 Exhibit 2 Performance Specification

Page 20, 3.2.2.5 & 3.2.2.6

Is it the government's intent to have the CSfC registration solution to be applicable for both tethered and untethered operations or is it the government’s intent to have a phased solution to migrate to an untethered capability?

CSfC registration is required for both tethered and untethered operations.

128 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 20, 3.2.25 Do the Wireless Access Points have to be on the NSA APL for wireless access systems?

The vendor needs to propose the solution that best meets the requirements.

129 Exhibit 2 Performance Specification

Page 20, 3.2.2.5 Does the requirement for the Wireless Access Point include the EUD connecting to the CSfC solution before data can be accessed from the Tactical radio i.e.

117G/150/152A etc?

The vendor needs to propose the solution that best meets the requirements.

130 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 46, 3.2.11 Does the Wireless Access Point have to be a “bolt on” solution to all the Tactical Radios outlined in the PSPEC?

Refer to 3.2.11.15 of the PSPEC. The vendor needs to propose the solution that best meets the requirements.

131 Exhibit 2

Specification

Page 64, 3.3.3.65

Is it the government's intent to drive towards a single purpose-built solution, with the understanding there are no COTS based solutions that can currently support hardware root of trust?

The vendor needs to propose the solution that best meets the requirements.

132 PSPEC 3.2.2.31 Updates to the MCH antivirus software shall not require internet connectivity.

Is the MCH Antivirus to be provided by Integrator or

USMC

If it is determined by the vendor to be required to meet the PWS, then it must be part of their proposed solution. The Government will not be providing Antivirus software.

133 PSPEC 3.2.2.32 Updates to the MCH host intrusion prevention software shall not require internet connectivity.

Is the MCH Antivirus updates to be provided by Integrator or USMC

If it is determined by the vendor to be required to meet the PWS, then it must be part of their proposed solution. If Antivirus is provided in the vendor’s solution, then updates must be provided by the vendor.

134 PSPEC Par 4.3.2, Table

Par 4.3.2, Table 1, The MCH EUD should be dual SIM card capable.

Currently there is no dual SIM chip NIAP approved devices, What is the Governments intent of the dual SIM chips?

Dual persona tied to classification levels?

Or use for CONUS vs. OCONUS?

And is that too tied to NIAP accreditation? Is that for all devices or a subset of them?

It is not intended to be used as a dual persona device. It will be employed worldwide. It is an objective requirement for all devices.

135 PSPEC 3.2.11.24 The MCH WLAN solution shall support a minimum of 5 MCH devices including MCH EUDs and WAPs. (T).

What is the minimum and maximum number of MCH devices (including MCH EUDs and WAPs) that the MCH WLAN should support?

Can the Government provide an AAO Quantity?

Per PSPEC 3.2.11.24, the threshold minimum number of MCH devices the MCH WLAN should support is 5, and the maximum has not been…