Q&A.pdf

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

1 Final RFP

SOW 3.3.2

Refurbishment Line No 3

Should the refurbishment cost of Developmental Test Assets be included in the pricing?

Refurbishment of the system at the completion of successful testing will be negotiated as a future task or delivery order, depending on nature of repairs required. Repair costs for test failures is a vendor responsibility.

2 Final RFP

L-1.4.4, A 2) c SB Participation Rate Line No 8

Gov't has requested a COTS solution; a 15% small business requirement is unreasonable given the Bidder supply chains are established for existing commercial products. Changes to supply chain increase program risk. Recommend removal of 15% small business requirement.

The Government adjusted the small business requirement to a minimum of between 1% and 5% of total proposed contract value. The change is reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

3 Final RFP

SOW C.3.1.2

Security Requirements Line No 45

Attach 5 DD-254 Contract Security Classification Specification, Attach A Page 3 or 4

Attachment 5_DD_254 references Attachment A potential risks. Will the Government please provide Attachment A.?

Attachment A (Continuation Sheet for DD Form 254) will be provided when solicitation amendment 0002 is posted.

M67854-19-R-2000 Requests for Clarification (RFCs) - Amendment 0002

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

4 Final RFP

Section L-1.4.4, 2)

b. Supplemental Narratives Line No 45

Attach 3 SB Participation and Commitment (6) Abilityone Program Organizations Notes #3

“Include supplemental narratives (limited to ten pages) to address other elements…” conflicts with the requirements from Attachment 3, page 6 (Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy) “Insert supplemental narratives (limited to five pages) to address joint venture particulars and other strategy elements…” Will the government clarify how many pages of supplemental narrative in Attachment 3 are allowed?

The Government acknowledges there is a conflict between the Section L language and the requirements in Attachment 3. The page number reference in Section L-1.4.4 will be removed; the requirements detailed in Attachment 3 apply. The change is reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

5 Final RFP

Attachment 3 SB Participation and Commitment Strategy

Should "Attachment 3 - Contract Level Performance Summary" include all ten ordering periods?

Yes, the form should have included all ten ordering periods. A revised Attachment 3 will be provided and posted with solicitation amendment 0002.

6 Final RFP

SOW 3.2 System Requirements Line No. 6

Can the Government verify the X-Band frequency range requirement of 7.125 - 7.750? Did the Government intend to increase the bandwidth from 600Mhz to 625MHz? Previous USMC X-Band requirements have been published at 7.125 - 7.725Mhz.

Attachment 4 (PSPEC) requirement for X Band is valid as written.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

Section C – Descriptions and Specifications (Included in M67854-19-R- 2000)

Statement of Work for the NGT Procurement and Sustainment / Page 57 of 135 / Paragraph 3.1.7 / Lines 1-9

DFARS Clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information, and Cyber Incident Reporting has been incorporated by reference (page 92). The incorporated DFARS clause completely defines all of the ITSEC controls required by paragraph 3.1.7 and covers all of the policies and procedures required to comply with Cyber Security. As the incorporated DFARS clause already meets the requirements defined by paragraph 3.1.7 and there have been ongoing discussions at the Navy and NCIS HQ Level with Industry regarding deletion of this language in RFPs, Industry would respectfully request that paragraph

3.1.7 be deleted from the SOW and allow DFARS 252.204-7012 to govern how the Contractor shall protect Government Controlled Unclassified Information housed on the Contractor’s systems.

Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 3.1.7 will not be removed. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) (ASN (RD&A)) issued guidance on the Implementation of Enhanced Security Controls on Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Partner Networks. All Department of Navy (DON) under ASN (RD&A)'s purview are now required to immediately insert into current and future contracts, task or delivery orders SOW language and Contract Data Requirements List(s)(CDRLs) requiring System Security Plans (SSPs) that implement the Security Controls in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) SP800-171, and NIST Publication 800-53.

8 Final RFP SOW/Page 57 / Para 3.1.7

Can the Government please clarify this statement “…when intelligence indicates a vulnerability or potential vulnerability.”

Vulnerabilities as determined by Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

9 Section L-1.4.4

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 123 /¶ (A)(1) (b) / Lines 1-

RFP Section L-1.4.4 (A)(1)(b) states that the Offeror “shall also provide copies of the most current Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs)… if a small business subcontracting plan was required by the contract.” If the Offeror’s past performance submissions only required compliance with a corporate small business subcontracting plan, would the Government accept copies of the Corporate Subcontracting Reports in lieu of ISRs to satisfy this requirement?

Yes, the Government will accept Corporate Subcontracting Reports in lieu of ISRs as long as they are recent and relevant.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

10 Section L-1.4.4

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 123 /¶ (A)(1) (b), Notes:

(3) / Lines 1-2

RFP Section L-1.4.4 (A)(1)(b), Notes: (3) states that the “Failure to provide ISRs or any other requested information must be fully explained and may negatively impact your evaluation.” If the Offeror submits Corporate Subcontracting Reports to satisfy the requirement of RFP Section L-1.4.4(A)(1)(b), provided the Offeror was only required to comply with a small business subcontracting plan on a corporate level for the submitted past performances, would the Government evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Subcontracting Reports with the same weight as ISR’s, without impacting the Offeror negatively?

See response for question #9. If a Corporate Report is provided, it will be evaluated the same as an ISR as long as it is for recent and relevant past performance.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

11 Section L-1.4.4

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 124 /¶ (A)(2) (c) / Lines 1-

RFP section L-1.4.4 (A) (2) (c) identifies an anticipated small business participation rate of 15%.

This rate was first communicated to potential offerors in the draft RFP, one (1) week prior to the Final RFP release, well after sourcing strategies have been defined. As a non-developmental system, there is limited flexibility to alter the system architecture and design in a manner that would significantly affect small business utilization rates without unnecessarily increasing technical risk and potentially cost. The injection of risk and cost is in direct opposition to the RFP objective of “efficient contract performance” cited in this same section. As a method to incentivize offerors to maximize small business utilization rates, while effectively managing risk, we recommend removing and explicit target value and instead evaluating the merit of tools and processes that have been, and will be, utilized to maximize those utilization rates. This will enable offerors to apply risk-based judgment to this non-developmental effort, aligning with the objectives of a “best value” acquisition.

See response for question #2.

4 -Section M-2 -Section M-2.2

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 130 /¶ (C), Table 1 / Lines 10-13 M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 132 /¶ (A), Table 4 / Lines 5-8

Table 1 identifies three (3) sub-factors for Subcontracting and Small Business Participation.

Table 4 identifies two (2) sub-factors for Subcontracting and Small Business Participation.

Please clarify the sub-factors for Subcontracting and Small Business Participation.

Table 1 is correct; Table 4 has been adjusted accordingly. Small Business Subcontracting Record is only applicable to Other than Small Businesses and can be addressed by ISRs or Corporate Subcontracting Reports that are recent and relevant to the acquisition.

The change is reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

13 Section M-2.2 M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 133 /¶ (A)(2) / Lines 1-3

Section M-2.2 (A) (2) states “Offerors will be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources”. How does the Government intend to evaluate “degree of commitment”?

Degree of commitment will be evaluated by information provided to show formal relationships with the proposed subcontractors, to include teaming agreements, joint venture agreements, mentor protégé agreements, etc.

14 Section M-2.2

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 133 /¶ (B), Table 5 / Lines 2-13

Table 5 identifies a five-level scale for rating small business. It is unclear what measurable criteria would differentiate the determination of exceptional (outstanding), thorough (good), or adequate (acceptable) as it relates to the rating selection in Table 5. When combined with the relative order of importance evaluation factor in section M-2 (A), the ambiguity of these three (3) terms potentially injects significant subjectivity into the overall evaluation process. Industry requests the Government employ a typical rating scale of Acceptable, Neutral, and Unacceptable (as currently used for Past Performance) and/or reducing the relative importance of Subcontracting and Small Business Participation would mitigate the level of subjectivity reflected in Table 5.

The Government will utilize the five-level scale.

Clarifying language has been added to the descriptions in Table 5 to remove subjectivity. The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors remains unchanged. The changes are reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

15 Section L-1.3.2 and L-1.4.2

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 118 / ¶ (E)(8), Table 2 / Lines 1-5 M67854-1921-R- 2000 / Page 121 / ¶

(B) / Lines 1-5

In section L-1.4.2 paragraph (B), the Offeror is required to provide a detailed description of each exception, deviation, condition, assumption, or request for waiver; however, Table 2 from paragraph (E)(8) of Section L-1.3.2 only allots the Offeror 1 page for Volume II, which would not provide sufficient page count for Industry to meet this requirement. Industry requests that the Government increase the maximum page count of Volume II to a total of ten (10) pages for this in order to fully comply with the requirements outlined in Section L-1.4.2 (B)?

The page limit for Volume II has been adjusted to a limit of five pages. The change has been reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

16 Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 55-56 / ¶ (E)(8) / Lines All

The Government identifies several key tasks in paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 that are not triggered by delivery of equipment, but rather the requirement for consistent program support throughout the duration of the contract. To ensure that the Government has the best access to necessary programmatic resources, regardless of active production, Industry requests that the Government add a CLIN in each ordering period for Program Management Support that includes the scope of paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.

The government will not add CLINs for program management.

17 Exhibit 1 CDRLs

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Exhibit 1 /

CDRL A00F /

Block 16

In CDRL A00F, Block 16, the Government includes the statement “CDRL attachment 1” and “CDRL Attachment 2”. Industry requests that the Government please issue the referenced attachments as part of the solicitation package.

The CDRL attachments will be provided when solicitation amendment 0002 is posted.

18 Attachment 4

PSPEC

Attachment 4 / Page 9-12 / ¶ 3.6.3 / Lines 3.6.3.1- 3.6.3.77

Industry requests that the Government provide the requirements for connecting to the Marine Common Data Network.

CDN is "Combat Data Network." Physical and non-physical signal interfaces are provided in section 3.3.1 of Attachment 4.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

19 Attachment 4

PSPEC

Attachment 4 / Page 9-12 / ¶ 3.6.3 / Lines 3.6.3.1- 3.6.3.77

Industry requests that the Government define what services the Marine Common Data Network provides to the Troposcatter system.

The system throughput requirements are outlined in section 3.2.2 of Attachment 4.

20 Attachment 4

PSPEC

Attachment 4 / Page 9-12 / ¶ 3.6.3 / Lines 3.6.3.1- 3.6.3.77

Industry requests that the Government provide what security measures or functions can be executed and/or inherited from the Marine Common Data Network.

All boundary protections, to include COMSEC, will be handled by CDN. It is incumbent on the NGT system to provide TRANSEC in accordance with section 3.6.2 of Attachment 4.

21 PSPEC,

Section 4.2

Attachment 4 / Page 30 / ¶ 4.2.2 / Lines 1-3

Radio Frequency (RF) systems are designed to overcome pathloss. Pathloss can only be related to distance when either a model is applied, or when a specific link is defined so that pathloss can be predicted. Industry requests that test coordinates be provided in order to understand the Government's plan for test and evaluation of the key performance requirements. This will allow Industry to provide the Government the most accurate assessment of performance against the Government test and evaluation criteria.

The Government will not be providing test coordinates. The system is required to comply with distance and throughput requirements within the boundaries of environmental requirements.

22 PSPEC,

Section 4.2

Attachment 4 / Page 30 / ¶ 4.2.2 / Lines 1-3

The RF characteristics of the troposphere change from season to season as well as day to night. Because of this, it is important to understand where and when the Government plans on conducting their testing. Bit Error Rate and Link Availability are measurements that can only be achieved over a statistically significant duration. Industry requests that the Government provide their procedure of how the system will be tested, including the test period and the Government's approach to acquire a statistically valid set of data. This will allow Industry to provide the Government with the most accurate assessment of performance against the Government test and evaluation criteria.

The system is required to comply with distance and throughput requirements within the boundaries of environmental requirements.

Solicitation Section

Document / Page / Paragraph / Line

Number Comment / Question Government Response

23 Exhibit 1 CDRLs

CDRL A00A,

A00G, A00H, A00J, A00K, A00L, A00M Block 16

Is it the expectation of the Government that all of these artifacts are Classified Secret? Industry requests that the Government provide a clearer definition of secure means.

All artifacts shall be classified in accordance with the DD254, the SCGs referenced within, and the Continuation Sheet for DD Form 254. Attachment A, Continuation Sheet, for the DD 254 will be provided when solicitation amendment 0002 is posted. The Continuation Sheet provides the address for secure mail.

24 3.2.7.3 M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 60 /

3.2.7.3 / Lines 1-3

Industry requests that the Government provide an attachment as part of the solicitation that contains the selected controls for the Troposcatter System.

The subset of controls that the system must adhere to are included in Attachment 4 (PSPEC), Section 3.6, and other contractual requirements.

L-1.3.2 (E)(4) and L-1.3.2 (E)(6)

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 116 / (E)(4) / Lines 1-4 M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 117 / (E)(6) / Lines 1-9

Industry requests that the requirement be changed to "Office 2010 or later format" in both references.

The Government has updated the language to reflect "Office 2010 or later format" in both references. The changes are reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

26 L-1.3.2 (E)(5)

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 116- 117 / (E)(5) / Lines 1-12

Can the Government please confirm whether a Cross Reference Matrix is required for Volumes II, IV, V, VI, and VII? If so, does it contribute to page count?

No, a Cross Reference Matrix is not required for Volumes II, IV, V, VI, and VII.

27 Section B

M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 2-52/

CLIN 0001-9010 /

Lines ALL

The Government has not defined the duration for each ordering period. Industry requests the Government confirm that ordering periods consist of consecutive 12 month durations?

The duration of each ordering period is 12 months.

The ordering periods were added to the CLIN descriptions and are reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

28 Section 3.2.9 M67854-19-R- 2000 / Page 61 /

3.2.9 / Lines 1-13

Industry requests that the Government provide the Government DT testing duration.

The Government will not provide the testing duration at this time. The cost of contractor support at Government DT should be included in CLIN 0001, NGT System DT Asset. CLINs 1006, 2005, 3005, etc.

will be marked as "Reserved." The CLIN description for CLIN 0001 will be updated to reference SOW paragraph 3.2.9. The changes are reflected in solicitation amendment 0002.

Sheet1