FMV_QA_FOR_DRAFT_RFP_VER.2.0.docx

FULL MOTION VIDEO (FMV) REQUIREMENT

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Version 2.0

Below is the Government’s response to potential Offerors questions received through May 4, 2016. The deadline for receiving questions, regarding the Draft RFP for FMV requirement, was May 4, 2016.

The Government may have received similar questions from potential Offerors. In an effort to provide comprehensive responses, the Government has summarized the questions to capture all aspects of questions covering the same subject matter. If a potential Offeror believes that his/her question was not adequately addressed, please contact Marie Burwell, Contract Specialist, at rosemarie.burwell@navy.mil.

Offerors are reminded that the final RFP defines the requirement and should propose in accordance with the final RFP when released. If the potential Offeror identifies a requirement in the final RFP that they believe conflicts with the Government response below, they are asked to notify Marie Burwell at the above email address.

A. GENERAL QUESTIONS

(A1) QUESTION: NAVAIR Contracts has requested that the CD-ROMs be returned to the government within two (2) weeks of the closing date of this draft announcement. Would it be permissible to load the Performance Specification requirements into DOORS to continue working on the technical solution for the solicitation?

(A1) ANSWER: Government will allow potential Offeror to retain copy of Performance Specification Requirements for entrance into DOORS. Government requests that all CD-ROMs issued to potential Offerors be returned for accountability of documents that are marked Distribution D. Documents in the CD-ROMs may change or updated before release of the final RFP. Potential Offeror’s proposal shall be based on Specification and documents associated with the Final RFP.

B. DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) QUESTIONS

(B1) QUESTION: Deliveries call out CLIN 0009 "Diplexers”. No callout of diplexers in Specifications as for performance and SWaP.

(B1) ANSWER: The Government does not plan to prepare a specification for the diplexers since this specification would be dependent on the vendor's MH-60S FMV System proposal which the Government cannot predict. As a result, the Government plans to remove CLIN 0009 and all other diplexer Option CLINs and instead allow the vendors to include the diplexers as part of the Mission Kit to give the vendors the flexibility to choose diplexer designs that would be compatible with their proposal for the MH-60S FMV System.

(B2) QUESTION: CDRL CLINs show as be accepted at Origin. Should they be accepted at Destination?

(B2) ANSWER: Yes. Government will accept CDRL CLINs at Destination.

(B3) QUESTION: Should last delivery date be 15 months instead of 12 months?

(B3) ANSWER: Government will review and update delivery dates as needed.

(B4) QUESTION: CDRL deliveries will continue through the period of performance for exercised options. Potential Offeror recommends that the delivery of CDRLs changed from 12 months to 15 months after award of the option.

(B4) ANSWER: Government will review and update delivery dates as needed.

(B5) QUESTION: Not all the CLINs defined in Section B are called out in paragraph on page 109. Potential Offeror recommends that the Government defines the award date of all the CLINs called out in Section B of the Draft RFP.

(B5) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide the anticipated award dates of all the CLINs called out in section B to allow for better planning of schedules and burden calculations.

(B6) QUESTION: On CLINs 2004 and 2005 for Option 2, deliveries start in month 25 After Date of Contract (ADC). Other CLINS for Option 2 start in month 28ADC. In Table III on page 47, it shows deliveries starting in month 28 After Receipt of Order (ARO).

(B6) ANSWER: Government will update CLINs 2004 and 2005 to align the delivery schedules. All delivery schedules in Table III, page 47 will be changed from ARO to ADC .

(B7) QUESTION: Please define “Book” as it pertains to the Technical Approach Volume and clarify the four (4) part structure in the proposal information instructions. For example, in Volume 2: Technical Approach, would heading 2.1 System Design be considered the “book”? If yes, what are the sections and elements?

(B7) ANSWER: The Government plans to review and provide clarification in Section L-1 Instructions.

(B8) QUESTION: Does the Government wish to have a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for each volume? If yes, please add Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms to the end of the 1st paragraph and exclude from the page count.

(B8) ANSWER: The Government plans to clarify that there is a requirement for a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for each volume which will be excluded from the page count in Section L.

(B9) QUESTION: Please clarify if an Annex is allowed for each Volume listed in Part B; and if data such as drawings, functional diagrams, analyses, and substantiating data would be considered “other information”.

(B9) ANSWER: Potential Offeror's proposal should follow the Annex information and all other technical information shall be submitted in accordance with technical volume.

(B10) QUESTION: Please clarify if the information required in Part B, 1.0 Volume I: Executive Summary, Item “b” is to be submitted both 33 days after formal RFP release and with the full proposal submission.

(B10) ANSWER: Government plans to clarify the Executive Summary, Item "b" only needs to be submitted once at the time of full proposal submission.

(B11) QUESTION: Please clarify if there is a missing heading for the contract clauses listed on pages 101 through 111.

(B11) ANSWER: There is no missing heading, however, the Government plans to review if adding a header to the contract clauses section would be helpful to separate it from the end of Section 6.2.

(B12) QUESTION: Please clarify where Offerors should include the completed Proposal Adequacy Checklist (pages 104-109) in their responses.

(B12) ANSWER: The Government will add clarification in Section L describing where in the proposal, the offeror should include the Proposal Adequacy Checklist.

(B13) QUESTION: Per the note "SB plan must be submitted to be eligible for award the acceptability of the content of that plan is part of the responsibility determination assessment and not part of the evaluation". This suggests the SB plan is not part of evaluation process but seems to conflict with the wording in 1.0, line c. on pg 113 of Section M. Clarify the intent on how Small business Utilization area will be evaluated.

(B13) ANSWER: The Government plans to clarify in Section M how the Small Business Utilization will be evaluated under Technical.

(B14) QUESTION: Per instructions in Section L, Attachment L-4 Cost/Price Summary Table must be completed. This table does not seem to allow for end items based significantly on commercial price items meeting FAR part 12 commercial item criteria. If we propose type end items can commercial prices entered by inserting a column in the table for the commercial prices and describing in detail any adaptation or addition to the commercial item prices?

(B14) ANSWER: Potential Offerors are to propose commercial type end item pricing as Material and apply any material handling to this pricing. If there is any additions/adaptions, the offeror should use the hours and rate columns to make adjustments to the pricing.

(B15) QUESTION: Per the Technical Approach sub-factors, the document states "For all the Technical Approach sub-factors a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned.” Are the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating assumed to be equal in value, or is one more important than the other?

(B15) ANSWER: In Section M, Parts A & B, the Government does not plan to change the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating definitions. These two types of ratings are not intended to be equated as they rate different characteristics of the proposal. Technical ratings reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance requirements. The Technical risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

(B13) QUESTION: Throughout the Table, only "strengths" and "deficiencies" are discussed as criteria for ratings. This implies that any "weakness" (as defined in the 5.0 Other Definitions) will not be considered in rating determination?

(B13) ANSWER: Government uses this standard table in accordance with NAVAIR Instructions. Weaknesses will be evaluated in the Technical Risk Rating , not Technical Rating . See Page 115, Section M, Technical Risk Rating.

C. STATEMENT OF WORK QUESTIONS

(C1) QUESTION: The definition of the option CLINs for production support state that it will be in accordance with the SOW. What should be in production support is not defined in the SOW?

(C1) ANSWER: Government will update the SOW to include Production Support.

(C2) QUESTION: SOW page numbers jump from 1 to 27. Is there anything missing?

(C2) ANSWER: There are no pages missing. SOW page numbering will be corrected.

(C3) QUESTION: Should the definition of “FMV” include diplexers?

(C3) ANSWER: Government will include Diplexers in the definition of the FMV Systems in the SOW.

(C4) QUESTION: Requiring ECPs for baseline changes during first article manufacturing and System Integration and Test (SIT) will adversely impact schedule and budget. Potential Offeror requests that ECPs for baseline changes not be required until later in the program (e.g. after PCA/FCA).

(C4) ANSWER: The Government plans to change the requirement to baseline the MH-60S FMV System design after completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) meeting. Baselining of the design will be required later in the program, after the completion of the Functional Configuration Audit (FCS) and Physical Configuration Audit(PCA), and upon the agreement of the contract’s technical point of contact. Any and all changes to the baseline shall be done via Government-approved Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs).”

(C5) QUESTION: The SOW states that all reviews will be conducted at Patuxent River. Potential Offeror request that these reviews be conducted at contractor’s site for reduced cost and better presentation of engineering expertise presence.

(C5) ANSWER: Government does not intend to change this requirement. All reviews will be held in Patuxent River, MD.

(C6) QUESTION: The scope of the Schematic Review Meetings is not defined in the SOW or in the referenced NAVAIRINST 4355.19E.

(C6) ANSWER: Government does not intend to hold Schematic Review Meetings and will remove Schematic Review Meeting from the SOW.

(C7) QUESTION: Piece part level failure mode analysis is significantly more costly than SRA/WRA level. The Offeror recommends doing failure mode analysis only to the WRA or SRA level.

(C7) ANSWER: The Government plans to require the detailed FMECA that involves piece part level failure mode analysis as opposed to a lesser failure mode analysis that is only done to the Weapons Replace Assembly (WRA) or Ship Replaceable Assembly (SRA) levels.

(C8) QUESTION: Does the government have an expected schedule (sequencing and durations) of the government testing planned?

(C8) ANSWER: Government plans to provide the expected testing schedule (sequencing and durations) in the SOW for clarification.

D. SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT QUESTIONS

(D1) QUESTION: Potential Offerors’ asked the Government to provide copies of four (4) missing documents from the Technical Library CD-ROM that are listed in the FMV Reference Table.

1. PMA299-567-7-1 Rev6 - 18-Jul-14 - MH-60S Armed Helicopter Weapon System Specification

2. 408921J - 20-Nov-09 - Interface Control Document for LN-100G HELI

3. A1-H60SA-NFM-000 - 1-Nov-14 - NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model MH-60S Helicopter

4. NG 238-SW08-IRS-IDD-R12 - 2-Oct-07- Link 16 Middleware Application (LMA) Interface Requirements Specification / Interface Description Document (IRS/IDD)

(D1) ANSWER: The Government has determined that two of the reference documents (#2 and #4 above) are not necessary for this requirement and will be removed from the FMV Specification table. Reference document #3 above can be accessed via the link provided https://mynatec.navair.navy.mil/. If a potential Offeror does not have a MyNATEC account, he/she can request one at the link provided. Directions to request an account can be found on the website. Document #1 will be corrected from Rev6 dated 18-Jul-14 to Rev 5a1, dated 19-Dec-2012 in the FMV Specification table. Document #1 Rev 5A1 will be provided via email to potential Offerors verified in accordance with the instructions provided in the draft RFP.

(D2) QUESTION: Potential Offerors asked the Government if there is an alternative way to obtain Document #3, A1-H60SA-NFM-000 - 1-Nov-14 - NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model MH-60S Helicopter, or waiting on NATEC access is the only method. (D2) ANSWER: If a potential Offeror is having difficulty getting access to MyNATEC account after requesting authorization, the potential offeror can request via email a copy of Document #3 from the Government. The Government will provide Document #3 in a CD-ROM and will send via mail to potential Offerors verified in accordance with the instructions provided in the draft RFP.

(D3) QUESTION: Several documents listed in the draft SOW and PIDS are not included in the reference documents and are not readily available to contractors. (See Table below)

(D3) ANSWER: The Government responded under (D-1) regarding the first 4 documents on the table. Document # 4: Link 16 Middleware Application (LMA) Interface Requirements Specification/Interface Description Document (IRS/IDD), which contains proprietary markings, was found not to be relevant for FMV effort and will be deleted. Documents #5 through 12 are commercial documents that potential Offerors must obtain directly from commercial sources.

(D4) QUESTIONS: Threshold (T) and Objective (O) markings are not uniformly applied, leading to assumptions about unmarked requirements.

(D4) ANSWER: The Government plans to identify all Objective requirements with (O) in the MH-60S FMV specification. A statement to paragraph 3.0 stating that all unmarked requirements are "Threshold" requirements, to avoid confusion, will be added.

(D5) QUESTION: Table IV doesn't indicate the combinations of waveforms/frequencies/encryption that will be used.

(D5) ANSWER: The Government plans to add information indicating the combinations of waveforms/frequencies/encryption that will be used in the FMV Specification, page 12, paragraph 3.2.

(D6) QUESTION: This requirement specifies latency for the entire link, but the FMV system has no control over the surface terminal's latency. Also, this requirement does not state whether this latency applies only to the Threshold modes of operation or to the Objective modes as well.

(D6) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the latency requirement in the FMV Specification because the latency requirement that is allocated to just the FMV system cannot easily be determined and is considered a low technical risk if not provided.

(D7) QUESTION: Specifying range is redundant given that EIRP is also specified. In order to provide link budget analysis supporting range requirements, the Government would need to provide detailed information about each of the listed transceivers.

(D7) ANSWER: The Government does not plan to remove the range requirements because “range” is a key system attribute to be verified during flight testing for determining the acceptability of the MH-60S FMV System. The Government does not plan to convert minimum RIP (Received Isotropic Power) to G/T (Antenna gain-to-noise-temperature) as RIP is expected to serve the vendors equally well for the purposes of performing a link budget analysis.

(D8) QUESTION: EIRPs listed are very high, especially for the Omni-antennas. This will require power amplifiers to be very large.

(D8) ANSWER: The Government plans to review these concerns with the listed EIRP.

(D9) QUESTION: Details about the GSE interface are not provided.

(D9) ANSWER: GSE is to be defined by the potential Offeror based upon their system definition. Per the SOW (paragraph 3.2.2), Peculiar SE should be minimized, and use of existing Government GSE is preferred. The Government plans to update the RFP to add the GSE requirement that "testing shall support the ability to identify operational state of the FMV."

(D10) QUESTION: How long does the Type 1 code need to be retained? Will it be retained with an external voltage or with a battery internal to the FMV system?

(D10) ANSWER: The Government plans to add a requirement for a battery internal to the FMV system for NSA, Type 1 code retention in the FVM Specification, page 16, paragraph 3.3.1.4.

(D11) QUESTION: RF cables of 40-50 feet incur a significant amount of loss. RFEs/Power Amps should be installed closer to the antennas.

(D11) ANSWER: The Government does not plan to shorten the RF cable length requirements. The RFEs/power amps are part of a Mission Kit that needs to be centrally located in the aircraft to allow installation and de-installation of the kit in a reasonable amount of time.

(D12) QUESTION: Transmitting and receiving in the same band may cause interference.

(D12) ANSWER: The Government plans to review the requirement concerning total power consumption with an understanding that the 60 watt requirement is too low and is not feasible.

(D13) QUESTION: Should "Table XVI" be "Table XIV"?

(D13) ANSWER: Yes. The Government will update the RFP to reflect this correction.

(D14) QUESTION: The definition of MFHBFA given in the text is (# of flight hours / # of false alarms), which implies units of hours/alarm and that a larger number would be better. However, Table XVI gives the threshold and objective values for MFHBFA in units of alarms/hour and states that a smaller number is better.

(D14) ANSWER: The Government intends to evaluate the number of false alarms per flight hours, not number of flight hours per false alarm.

(D15) QUESTION: The text references RTCA/DO-160B, but Table II lists RTCA/DO-160G, Change 1. Additionally, Paragraph 3.15 references RTCA/DO-160D.

(D15) ANSWER: The Government will use the latest revision of specification RTCA/DO-160 and ensure that the references are consistent throughout the RFP.

(D16) QUESTION: RTCA/DO-160D Section 22 category is not specified.

(D16) ANSWER: The Government plans to specify the RTCA/DO-160DG, Change 1, Section 22, category XXE3XX for lightning, indirect effects requirements on the equipment's antennas.

(D17) QUESTION: Paragraph 3.23 and its sub-paragraphs refer to "external" connectors. Are these connectors external to the FMV system (interfaces coming from outside the dotted line in Figure 1), or are these all connectors external to individual WRAs?

(D17) ANSWER: The Government plans to update the beginning of paragraph 3.23 to state:

"This paragraph (including sub-paragraphs) addresses connections required between the FMV WRAs, as well as, connections between FMV WRAs and the aircraft systems. The term external connectors used in this paragraph refer to both connectors outside the FMV WRAs and connectors outside the FMV System."

(D18) QUESTION: Paragraph number 3.23.1 requires D38999 connectors for all non-RF external connectors, but Paragraph 3.3.1.5 requires a MIL-PRF-39012F BNC Triax connector for the FLIR video connector. These are contradictory requirements.

(D18) ANSWER: The Government plans to eliminate the contradictions by:

1) Deleting ""External"" in 3.23.1 paragraph title.

2) Rewriting 3.23.1 paragraph as follows:

Non-RF external connectors, not specifically identified elsewhere in this Specification (e.g., FLIR), shall meet MIL-DTL-38999M. (FMV-195) Use of external connectors not covered by MIL-DTL-38999M shall require prior approval by the Government.

4) Adding the following to the end of paragraph 3.23.3:

""Use of RF connectors not covered by MIL-PRF-39012F shall require prior approval by the Government.""

5) Deleting "External" in 3.23.4 paragraph title.

6) Deleting "external" in 3.23.4.

(D19) QUESTION: The requirement for input/output voltage circuitry protection for shorts, opens, or crossed lines will likely add complexity and SWaP to the FMV system.

(D19) ANSWER: Government will remove this requirement.

(D20) QUESTION: RF output open and short circuit protection is not standard design practice and may add complexity to the FMV system.

(D20) ANSWER: Government will remove this requirement.

(D21) QUESTION: It would be beneficial to have a description of the Concept of Operations (CONOP), including an OV-1 diagram. Describe the CONOP, and insert an OV-1 diagram.

(D21) ANSWER: The Government will consider including Over View -1 or OV-1 diagram which will describe the CONOP.

(D22) QUESTION: Does the requirement for two independent datalinks include the requirement that the system must operate simultaneously at two different classifications levels, e.g. unclassified on one link and classified on the other?

(D22) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide clarification that the requirement to operate simultaneously up to two independent data links will NOT require that they simultaneously operate at two different classification levels on the FMV Specification, page 11, paragraph 3.0, Requirement Identification FMV-006.

(D23) QUESTION: The requirement needs additional clarification as it affects the overall system architecture. Is the bi-directional relay always to be done in a symmetrical manner where the waveform and data rate are the same?

(D23) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide clarification about the waveforms and data rates required for the bi-directional relay in the FMV Specification, page 11, paragraph 3.0, Requirement Identification FMV-007. The plan is to add a feature description of the desired relay function.

(D24) QUESTION: Clarify if the transmit to the two platforms occurs in the same frequency band or different bands? Are the waveform and data rate the same or different?

(D24) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide clarification that the transmit to two platforms occurs in different frequency bands and the waveform and data rate can be the same or different in the FMV Specification, page 11, paragraph 3.1(b).

(D25) QUESTION: Only item in this section references L-band. Is the Objective requirement to operate in L-band, or to perform relay in L-band? Is there desire to transmit and receive in L-band as an Objective requirement even if relay is not offered?

(D25) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide clarification that an objective requirement is the ability to transmit and receive in L-band even if relay is not offered in the FMV Specification, page 11, paragraph 3.1(e) The Government plans to change this requirement into three separate capabilities: Transmit in L frequency band (O), receive in L frequency band (O) and perform relay in L frequency band (O).

(D26) QUESTION: Bandwidth Efficient CDL (BE-CDL) was not included in the waveform standards. Potential Offeror recommends that BE-CDL be added to Performance Specs into Paragraph 3.2 and Table IV.

(D26) ANSWER: Government intends to keep the solicitation as written.

(D27) QUESTION: FM analog is listed in this column but the specification is not listed in the waveform standards section above, and no spec was provided with the draft RFP.

(D27) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the column for FM analog and all requirements for Analog operation in the FMV Specification, page 12, paragraph 3.2 Table IV, columns 5,6,8,12 .

(D28) QUESTION: Per Table IV of the Performance specs, paragraph 3.2, a total of 5 waveforms are required to cover the various receiver/transmitters. Many of these waveforms provide redundant capability (meaning they fill in the same exact x in the table). Potential Offeror recommends that the Government reduce the number of waveforms to the minimum required to cover the various receiver/transmitters (for example, all can be covered with just 466ER and CDL).

(D28) ANSWER: The Government plans to reduce the number of waveforms required from 5 to 4 by removing FM Analog which provides redundant capability in the FMV Specification, page 12, paragraph 3.2 Table IV.

(D29) QUESTION: To ensure that performance will be met, the potential Offeror requests that the Navy provide Link Budget files (previously Link 98) for each of the use cases.

(D29) ANSWER: The Government will consider providing Link Budget files for each use case.

(D30) QUESTION: The latency requirement does not provide the endpoints for measurement.

(D30) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the latency requirements from the FMV Specification, page 13, paragraph 3.2.1 requirements identification, FMV-022.

(D31) QUESTION: H.261 is only used by the 455 waveform, which has no specification and is not listed in your requested waveforms.

(D31) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the requirement for MPEG-C/H.261 (ISO/IEC 23002-1:2006) video encoding and decoding from FMV Specification, on page 13, paragraph 3.2.1, and page 18, paragraph 3.3.2(u).

(D32) QUESTION: No mention of Ku-band Omni antenna in paragraph 3.2.3.1, however, Table V lists Ground/SOF as intended receivers. Exact location of these forces is not always known, which will prevent proper pointing of the directional antenna. Having an Omni-directional antenna as part of the system would mitigate this impact. Potential Offeror recommends that Government provide a use case transmitting with an Omni-directional Ku-band antenna, with desired range performance to ROVER.

(D32) ANSWER: Government will update the FMV specifications with regards to directional Ku band antenna to the Aircraft Kit.

(D33) QUESTION: A better way to ensure that performance will be met is for the Navy to provide Link Budget files for each of the use cases. The potential Offeror recommends that the Government provides Use Cases and Link Budget parameters and remove Table VIII of the Performance Specification. A good example of this was done in SPAWAR/PMW 170's recent NTCDL RFP. Here the government provided Link Budget files for each use case. Responders were limited to settings in a few fields which represented their implementation.

(D33) ANSWER: The Government will consider providing Link Budget files for each use case.

(D34) QUESTION: Performance Specs Table VII only lists Omni to directional. Omni to Omni should be specified in addition to the Omni to directional currently listed.

(D34) ANSWER: The Government plans to investigate whether or not to specify Omni antenna to Omni antenna range requirements in Table VII with regard to the MH-60S to MH-60S Air to Air Ranges table.

(D35) QUESTION: Figure 1 on page 16 of the Performance Specs implies that the FMV Central Control Unit, although made up of a combination of components, is to be combined into a single Line Replaceable Unit (LRU). Contractor recommends that Government consider separate LRUs for digital and RF components. This would allow RF components to be located closer to the antennas, enabling higher performance.

(D35) ANSWER: The diagrams that are provided are based on a 'Notional' design concept and are for use as guidance and clarity in conveying the Government requirements. Vendor response to achieve performance enhancements is encouraged. However, location of WRAs is subject to the space available and within the requirements of the aircraft. Specific locations for LRUs may be investigated, but specifics will be required beyond the locations provided.

(D36) QUESTION: To meet the objective requirements for relay, there may be a mode of operation where you can have two transmitters enabled. Is the desire for two Ground Support Equipment (GSE)interfaces for the mode of operation?

(D36) ANSWER: GSE is to be defined by the potential Offerror based upon their system definition. Per the SOW (3.2.2), Peculiar SE should be minimized, and use of existing Government GSE is preferred. Testing should support the ability to identify operational state of the FMV.

(D37) QUESTION: Requirement provides no specification for output power on the GSE interface. Is this a low-power output mode? Provide minimum and maximum output power at GSE interface. Additional description of the GSE is needed to understand the interface.

(D37) ANSWER: GSE is to be defined by the potential Offeror based upon their system definition. Per the SOW (3.2.2), Peculiar SE should be minimized, and use of existing Government GSE is preferred. Testing should support the ability to identify operational state of the FMV.

(D38) QUESTION: Are AES keys expected to be loaded via key fill device or loaded through the CDU?

(D38) ANSWER: The Government plans to review how AES keys are expected to be loaded and will provide clarification in the specification.

(D39) QUESTION: Figure 1 in paragraph 3.3.1.7 infers that the CCU is a single LRU with 50 feet RF cable to the antennas, driving the system to require large high power amplifiers.

(D39) ANSWER: The Government plans to provide clarification on the frequency usage for Forward Link (FL) and Return Link (RL) to allow for appropriate separation when transmitting and receiving in the same band.

(D40) QUESTION: Analog capability is outdated and vulnerable.

(D40) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the FM analog requirement from the FMV Specification, on page 17, paragraph 3.2.2(a).

(D41) QUESTION: If you remove Lban capability from your requirements, or separate into multiple Objective requirements, then this line should be corrected to match.

(D41) ANSWER: The Government plans to correct this requirement to show that operation in L Band is an Objective requirement in order to be consistent and matching with earlier L-band requirements in the FMV Specification, on page 17, paragraph 3.2.2(c)

(D42) QUESTION: Transmitting and receiving on the same band is possible, but requires clarification on frequency usage for Forward Link (FL) for transmit and Return Link (RL) for receive to allow for appropriate separation.

(D42) ANSWER: Government plans to update the specification by clarifying frequency use in the same frequency band such as the Ku Frequency Band.

(D43) QUESTION: Clarify that encryption is to be used on transmitted data.

(D43) ANSWER: The Government plans to clarify that the vendor shall provide the capability to encrypt FMV data during transmission.

(D44) QUESTION: ARINC 615A-2 supports Ethernet loading using TFTP. Need to clarify this is an acceptable hardware interface.

(D44) ANSWER: The Government does not plan to change the requirement in the specification because clarification already exist in the ARINC 615A-2 which states that it supports Ethernet loading using TFTP.

(D45) QUESTION: Per document, CDU shall "a) Provide controls for mode select, band select, encryption, frequency select, and channel select as applicable, source select, and antenna control. (FMV-069)". Does "source select" refer to video source (from onboard FLIR vs off board FMV)?

(D45) ANSWER: The Government plans to add additional information to clarify that "source select" refers to the video source (i.e. onboard FLIR vs. off board FLIR) for display on the CDU.

(D46) QUESTION: The requirement in the FMV Specs, paragraph 3.3.3 (c) that states that the CDU shall momentarily transmit unencrypted FMV without requirement to re-key device (O) should be clarified.

(D46) ANSWER: The Government plans to clarify this requirement to state "When keyed for encrypted operation, the system shall be capable of being commanded to bypass mode, and continue to hold the key codes in the FMV Specification, on page 19, paragraph 3.3.3(c).

(D47) QUESTION: FMV Performance Specs, paragraph 3.3.3 Table IX, Row 1 references BR - 0.455 digital, which is not included in any of the waveform Specification. Potential Offeror recommends removing the first row from Table IX.

(D47) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove the Row 1 references to BR-0.455 digital from the FMV Specification, page 19, paragraph 3.3.3, Table IX.

(D48) QUESTION: Analog capability is outdated and vulnerable.

(D48) ANSWER: The Government plans to remove Table XI. Analog Waveform Characteristics from the FMV Specification, page 19, paragraph 3.3.3(q)

(D49) QUESTION: 28V IAW MIL-STD-704A, Category B is a difficult and costly requirement to meet, and other equipment that is installed on the MH-60S does not meet this requirement.

(D49) ANSWER: The Government requirement to meet MIL-STD-704A, Category B, Notice 2 for operating with 28 Volts Direct Current (VDC) aircraft power will remain as is.

(D50) QUESTION: The maximum power of 60 watts will be insufficient for a system meeting these requirements (D50) ANSWER: The Government plans to review the requirement concerning total power consumption.

(D51) QUESTION: Per FMV Performance Specs, the Central Control Unit shall be no larger than 15” (wide) x 19” (deep) x 8” (height) (FMV-124). Is the planned location of the CCU known? Can details be provided (front or rear access available)?

(D51) ANSWER: Dimensions provided are based on known locations available in the aircraft. For the CCU, the volume is based upon a location on the cabin floor behind the Pilot's seat. Three (top, inside, and aft) if not four (starboard) sides should be accessible. No 3-D modeling is available at this time.

(D52) QUESTION: Requirement references Table XVI instead of Table XIV for ship dynamics. Additionally, the Angle Rates for Ship motion.

(D52) ANSWER: Government will correct the typographical error.

(D53) QUESTION: The Angle Rates for ship motion for roll and pitch do not match those typically seen in RFPs for US Navy Shipboard systems. Roll is typically 12 degrees over 10.87 sec (1.1 deg./sec.) and pitch is 2 degrees over 6 seconds (.33 deg./sec). Heading change of 3 degrees/sec is typical.

(D53) ANSWER: Government plans to correct the requirement to more typical values so as not to unnecessarily impact system design and complexity adversely.

(D54) QUESTION: Specifying MIL-DTL-38999M will prohibit the use of the Mighty Mouse circular connectors widely used on military avionics due to their high density.

(D54) ANSWER: Non-RF external connectors, not specifically identified elsewhere in this Specification (e.g., FLIR), shall meet MIL-DTL-38999M (FMV-195).

image1.emf