QAs RFP for Amendment 2 (27 Feb).pdf

Questions and Answers

The following are question(s) received from potential offerors:

Question 1: The following specification was referenced in the solicitation but does not appear to have been included in the solicitation documents:

KMI 3003 Using CMS to Protect Key Packages, Version 2.13, 8 May 2009 U//FOUO

Are you able to provide this document or otherwise point us to its location?

Answer 1: Document has been distributed. See Question 2 for a complete list.

Question 2: (Ref SOW) Please provide the set of draft technical documents and specifications referenced in the draft RFP.

Unclassified Documents:

1. TD-1271 Ops and Maintenance Instructions -D00 00A_ EE163-G A-OMI-010/E106-

TD1271B

2. National Security Agency Specification - Interface Specification for KGV-11A/C, General

Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module - NSA_SPEC_87-8A

3. DoD interface standard interoperability standard for 24-KHZ TDMA/DAMA Terminal waveform - MIL-STD-188-183A Change One

4. DoD interface standard interoperability standard for 24-KHZ TDMA/DAMA Terminal waveform - MIL-STD-188-183A Change Two

5. EKMS 308 Data Tagging and Delivery Standard Revision F - April 16, 2008 - EKMS 308F

6. National Security Agency - Classification guide for CRYPTOGRAPHIC

MODERNIZATION (CRYPTOMOD)

7. National Security Agency - NSA/CSs Policy 3-9 Revised: 9 October 2012

8. Technical Security Requirements Document (TSRD) KGV-11M_12 June 2017

9. Software Analysis and Assessment Process Description (SAAPD) _12 June 2017_Rev F

10. Technical Requirements Documents (TRD) to Cryptographically Modernized the KGV-11A Version 1.0_ 11 October 2017

11. KMI_3001 Revision A_11 September 2008

12. KMI 3001_Annex A Revised 31 August 2010

13. KMI 3240 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Key Wrap_ 02 September 2010

14. KMI 3003 Using CMS to protect Key Packages Version 2.13_ 08 May 2009

15. 0N378554, KGV‐8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing

16. ON378554-001 KGV‐8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing Page 1

17. ON378554-002 KGV‐8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing page 2

18. ON377995C-001 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module

19. ON 377864B-001 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module

20. ON 377864B-002 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module

21. ON 377864B-003 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module

22. ON 377864B-004 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module

Classified Documents:

1. IASRD

2. TTAM

3. KEESEE CRYPTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

4. "SCRAMBLER TEST VECTORS"

5. NSA 84-25, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY SPECIFICATION FOR KGV-8/TSEC,

GENERAL PURPOSE COMSEC/TRANSEC MODULE AND TSEC/ST-61(E-1),

MAINTENANCE TEST EQUIPMENT

Question 3: (Ref Section L, Paragraphs 1.13 and 3.2.3) Paragraph 1.13 states the effective date of contract award is Sept 2018 and section 3.2.3 states it is 25 May 2018. Which date should we assume? Note the latter paragraph states PRR is at the end of April 2020.

Answer 3: The estimated date of award in both references has been changed to 31 August 2018 in Amendment 0001. Additionally, Amendment 0001 changes the notional PRR date to July 2020.

Question 4: (Ref Section L, 1.13 Proposal Submission) Are hard copies of the proposal required to be mailed in to SPAWAR. If yes, can they be mailed in after the deadline if an electronics proposal was submitted on time?

Answer 4: Hard copies of proposals are not requested or required. Electronic proposals should be the only responses submitted on behalf of the interested parties.

Question 5: (Ref TRD, TRD-1940) what is the U.S. Government's rationale for the 2.5W or less power requirement cited in the Technical Requirements Document (TRD). The TD-1271 is a legacy product that uses a KGV-11 device that has less requirements than the solicited modern product which may require more power given the size of the algorithms, memory, and HMI mechanisms. Is the U.S. Government open to adjusting this requirement upward?

Answer 5: No, the Government will not adjust this requirement upward. 2.5W is the legacy KGV-11A product maximum power draw calculated at highest data rate per NSA 87-8A. If the TD-1271 operates the KGV-11A at a lower data rate, the actual power draw is less than 2.5W.

The power capability of the TD-1271 for the KGV-11M is not known, so the design goal is not to exceed the legacy power draw and take on additional risk.

Question 6: (Ref TRD, TRD-480) Please provide a copy of the referenced document "0N378554, KGV-8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing." It was not delivered as part of the RFP or technical data package.

Answer 6: 0N37854L-001.iges was the file provided that satisfies the requested document and is listed in the answer to question 2.

Question 7: (Ref RFP, Simulator) Is there existing data that captures the interface exchanges between the KGV-11M and TD-1271 that can be provided as GFE (perhaps logic analyzer recordings) that can be leveraged to provide further insight into interface timing in real world over the air test scenarios?

Answer 7: Government findings will be provided as GFI for "Informational Purposes Only" after award. Per the SOW, Section 7.2, access to the SSC Pacific laboratory will be made available during the development period to verify interface operations between the TD-1271 and the

KGV-11A.

Question 8: (Ref RFP, 1. Exercise of Options) the exercise option periods are written in a way that allow periods to be skipped. Will this language be corrected so that Option period year one must be exercised prior year two and the year two periods must be exercised prior to exercising Year three?

Answer 8: The Government included clarification to the Addendum to Section H, 1. Exercised of Option in Amendment 0001, as follows:

“Each subsequent set of Production Lot option CLINs will not be exercised unless the previous option CLIN is exercised. For example, option CLINs 2001, 2003 will not be exercised unless until after option CLINs 1001, 1003 are exercised.”

Question 9: (Ref RFP, Technical Specifications) Will there be an extension of the due date in accordance with the delayed arrival of the technical specifications?

Answer 9: Yes, this effort will be extended through 28 Feb 2018 @ 1200PM PST in Amendment 0001.

Question 10: (Ref RFP, Production CLINs) Is there a minimum expected warranty required on the production units?

Answer 10: No, a warranty is not required.

Question 11: (Ref RFP, SF33 & Section L) The SF 33 has a 60 day validity date and section L-

3.1.1 has a twelve month validity date. Which is correct?

Answer 11: Block 12 is to be filled out on behalf of the Offeror. However, Per Section L-3.11 the Government is requesting that the proposal be valid for no less than 12 Months (365 days).

Question 12: Page 11/89 of the solicitation states that the Government “seeks to acquire, at a minimum, Government Purpose Rights (GPR)” … ”for commercial and noncommercial technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation…” The Government then provides a “Data Rights Table” where the contractor is asked to identify Data Rights on a CDRL by CDRL basis and to identify FFP price for the data rights for each CDRL.

During the Draft RFP Q&As, we asked whether or not a potential offeror would be deemed non-compliant if they chose to reserve their Commercial, Limited, or Restricted rights in existing commercial or noncommercial technical data, computer software and computer software documentation. The Government indicated that final requirements would be found in the Final RFP which, when released, did not provide additional dialogue with respect to Data Rights.

Accordingly, we are seeking additional clarification?

Answer 12: Amendment 0002 provides update to technical data rights requirements in the RFP.

Question 13: Is the Government requiring GPR or Unlimited rights for all CDRL deliverables, inclusive of data for which the DFARS allows the contractor to assert Limited or Restricted rights over, as a condition of being responsive to the solicitation or award?

Answer 13: Amendment 0002 provides update to technical data rights requirements in the RFP.

Question 14: If a contractor properly asserts data rights restrictions in accordance with the FAR and DFARS clauses, may the contractor include such data as protected attachments to the CDRL submissions and still be compliant?

Answer 14: Amendment 0002 provides update to technical data rights requirements in the RFP.

Submitted: 24 Jan 2018

Question 15: (Ref Section L, 1.3.6.2 Other Direct Charges) “Offerors shall not propose Other Direct Costs (ODCs) that are different from what is set for the in CLINs. The Government has provided ODCs, which will be charged to the ODC CLINS 0003 and 1003. Those CLINs will be awarded with the NTE amounts as listed in Section B.”

Is it okay to propose ODC in CLIN 0001, if a supplier’s approved CAS disclosure statement and approved estimating system require items defined as ODC to be bid to be bid in CLIN 0001 to properly cost CLIN 0001 tasks, Answer 15: Amendment 0001 changes CLIN 0003 to be specific to ODC’s associated with CLIN 0002 only. ODC’s in support of CLIN 0001 should be bid in the estimated costs for CLIN 0001 and will not be included in the related NTE’s.

Question 16: (Ref Page 22, Interface Speculation for KGV-11A/C, General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module) General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC MAODULE references ON drawing numbers 0N377995-1 and 0N377864-1. They were not delivered as part of the technical data package.

Please provide a copy of these referenced documents.

Answer 16: ON378554-001 KGV‐8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing Page 1, ON378554-002 KGV‐8A/11A/8B/11B/8C/11C Installation Control Drawing page 2, ON377995C-001 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module, ON 377864B-001 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module, ON 377864B-002 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module, ON 377864B-003 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module, and ON 377864B-004 General Purpose COMSEC/TRANSEC Module were the files provided that satisfy the requested documents and are listed as numbers 16-22 in the answer to question 2.

Question 17: (Ref TRD, Page 53) Confirm that for TRD-3170, TRD-3180, TRD-3200, and TRD 3210 the intent is to specify a rise and fall time of 20 nsec per volt (20nsec/v) instead if 20nsec?

Answer 17: The rise and fall times are as specified in the TRD and supporting documentation.

Submitted 26 Jan 2018

Question 18: Related to the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) values established for Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLINs 0003 and 0103.

On Page 77/89 of the solicitation is states that offerors must insert the “NTE ODC amounts EXACTLY” in Section B for CLINs 0003 and 0103. We are seeking confirmation that the per CLIN NTE of $16,000 established by the Government considered both traditional ODCs as well as travel. For instance, if an offeror anticipates utilizing a Small Business Subcontractor to perform specific, pre-defined environmental testing services at the subcontractor’s site, such costs would be ODCs. Because of the NTE ceilings provided, offerors are likely prevented from doing so even when it would be lowest cost and/or in the best interest of the Government.

We are requesting that the Government consider removing the NTE ceilings from development CLINs 0003 and 0103 so as to encourage each offeror to establish the most advantageous cost allocation buildup for the Government. We believe that this will result in more competitive bids as offerors will not only be able to apportion work in the most cost efficient manner possible, but will also be able to take into account other contract goals.

Answer 18: Amendment 0001 has incorporated changes for Offerors to bid ODC for development within the estimated cost of CLIN 0001. All other ODC CLINs are associated with Engineering services. (Ensure all references to additional CLINs in RFP are taken out)

Question 19: Related to Section L, Paragraph 1.3.7 entitled “Bill of Material (BOM) for CLIN 0001.

On Page 75/89 of the solicitation this section has a bullet list of BOM requirements. It appears that the Government’s intent was that Worksheet 6-6 should tie to these requirements. However, in reviewing Worksheet 6-6, several of these items appear to be missing or do not align.

Specifically, “Total Cost” is in Worksheet 6-6 and not in Section L, while the following from Section L are not included in the Worksheet: WBS Number & BOE Number, Basis of Requirement, Identification of Make/Sole Source/Competitively Procured, Identification of Cost Category, and Supporting Data. Additionally, can the Government please define the requirement of “Vendor Quote Link” in Worksheet 6-6 as Section L does not appear to require offerors to provide vendor quotes as a requirement of the bid.

Answer 19: Paragraph 1.3.7 and Worksheet 6-6 have been revised to be consistent. “Vendor Quote Link” was revised to “Basis if Price” which as listed in paragraph 1.3.7 could include ” i.e. written quote, verbal quote, estimate, analogy, FFP, historical actuals, etc”. Additionally the following note was added to paragraph 1.3.7:

NOTE: This Section ONLY applies to direct materials that are proposed for the effort required

CLIN 0001.

Question 20: Is it possible to obtain the second sheet of drawing 0N378554L-001.iges? My technical team has indicated that only the first sheet of the drawing was provided within that file.

Answer 20: The second sheet of drawing 0N37854L-001.iges was provided to satisfy the requested document.

Submitted 29 Jan 2018

Question 21: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.5 SOW 3.1.1 – there is no such section. Please clarify?

Answer 21: SOW Section 3.1.1 (Post Award Conference) exists in the SOW (Attachment-1) dated 09 January 2018. Referenced section is on page 8 of the SOW.

Question 22: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.5 SOW 3.1.1 – SOW 3.7 is the TRR and there is no mention of the SDPDD. Is this reference correct?

Answer 22: Section L has been updated to provide the corrected reference.

Question 23: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.5 CDRL04 – there is no such item. We assume you are referring to CDRL B004 which is the SDPDD. If you are referring to B004, it references SOW 3.1.1 which does not exist. Is there another statement of work reference that is applicable?

CDRL B004 references TSRD 2.5 which is the SDPDD and it references DI-IPSC-81427A;

however, both Section L and Section M reference DI-IPSC 81427B. Which is the correct DID?

We believe Section L and M should reference the A version rather than the B.

Answer 23: Section L has been updated to provide the corrected CDRL, CDRL B004.

Submitted 31 Jan 2018

Question 24: Related to Section B, CDRL CLINs 2003 & 3003, CLINs 0004, 0005 and 1003 are identified as “NSP” consistent with the requirements of the cost volume. However, CLINs 2003 & 3003 appear to be missing this marking. Can the Government please confirm that these CLINs are NSP?

Answer 24: Correct, CLINs 2003 & 3003 are NSP

Question 25: Related to Section C – Addendum to Section C, On Page 14/89 there is a reference to the “NTCDL System Performance Specification (SPS and Statement of Work).” Can the Government please indicate if the reference to NTCDL was in error?

Answer 25: Section C, Page 14 of 91 has been changed to reference only the Statement of Work as Attachment No. 1 in Amendment 0002.

Question 26: Related to Section I– Page 26/89 includes FAR 52.224-3 – Privacy Training. Per the clause, including its prescription, this training is required when a contractor employee will 1) have access to a system of records; 2) create, collect, use, process, store, maintain, disseminate, disclose, dispose, or otherwise handle personally identifiable information (PII); or 3) design, develop, maintain or operate a system of records. Does the Government anticipate that contractors will be required to access, create, or design a system of records on individuals to accomplish and agency function under this development effort? If not, can this requirement be removed?

Answer 26: FAR 52.224-3 – Privacy Training is deleted in Amendment 0002.

Question 27: Related to Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference – Pursuant to FAR 15.408(n)(2), can the Government confirm that FAR 52.215-22 entitled “Limitation on Pass- Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort,” listed in Section L, is intended to apply only to the Cost Type contract CLINs under this competitive acquisition? If so, can the Government please identify the same in Section L?

Answer 27: FAR provisions that are only applicable to cost type contracts are only applicable to cost type CLINs in the RFP.

Question 28: Related to Section L, Paragraph 1.3.6.1 Labor, Page 74/89 of the solicitation requests each offeror to “Identify the various labor categories required/intended for use under this contract (e.g., Sr. Engineer, Jr. Engineer) including the number of labor hours and total cost for each labor category proposed by fiscal year quarter. The labor specified shall be for the prime Offerors direct labor and shall also include any subcontracted labor.” Is “total cost” referring to Direct Labor Dollars only (i.e. Prime Dollars) or is it to be inclusive of all Offeror burdens (i.e.

DL dollars + OH + G&A + FCCM), excluding fee?

Answer 28: Section L, Paragraph 1.3.6.1 is describing costs that should be broken out in worksheet 6-5, for each BOE. The “total cost” is referring to unburdened labor cost for prime and subcontracted effort. Amendment 0002 provides clarification for this section.

Question 29: Related to Section L, Paragraph 1.10 Indirect Rates, Page 78/89 -- There is a shall stating that “If proposing indirect rates with a ten (10) percent year to year differential from recent incurred rates, Offerors shall include a detailed explanation and supporting cost data (including budget information).” If the “budget information” has already been provided to DCAA/DCMA and offeror has a current FPRA in place, then is it still required that offeror provide the detailed explanation and supporting cost data (including budget information) within the Cost Volume?

Answer 29: If offerors have a current FPRR or FPRA in place and are proposing the FPRR or FPRA rates, then supporting cost data is not required. Amendment 0002 provides clarifying language..

Question 30: Related to Section L, Paragraph 2.1.2 Page 55/89 of the solicitation identifies the section requirements for Volume II: Technical Proposal. Section 6 of Volume II is entitled “Small Business Participation,” which is further defined on Pages 63 & 64/89 as requiring both the Small Business Participation Data form as well as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Both the Small Business Participation Data form and the Small Business Subcontract Plan require the submission of cost and/or pricing data (e.g. dollar values, total acquisition value, percentages against total acquisition value, etc.). The proposal format requirements on page 56/89 state that cost/pricing information is not to be included in any volume other than Volume I and Volume III. Can the Government please address this perceived conflict in the solicitation?

Answer 30: No cost/pricing information should be included in Volume II, with the exception of Section 6, Small Business Participation/Plan. Amendment 0002 provides clarification.

Question 31: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.1. - Page 57/89 states that the “above listed information (items 1-7) shall also be provided for all proposed subcontractors.” However, the Cover Letter/Executive Summary is limited to two pages. Will the Government consider excluding this administrative data from the page count? Else, will the Government identify a separate section to include this data?

Answer 31: Amendment 0002 adds wording to provide up to a 10 page limit

Question 32: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.1.6. - Paragraph d of this section requests the analysis performed on any subcontractor’s cost/price proposal used to determine it fair and reasonable. Can the Government please confirm that, as a part of this competitive acquisition, it is requiring discrete subcontractor cost or pricing data for the Cost Type CLINs only?

Answer 32: Amendment 0002 adds wording to clarify that Paragraph 3.1.6, paragraph d applies to cost type CLINs only.

Question 33: Related to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.3 - Section 3: Integrated Master Schedule and Section L-3.3, Paragraph 1.13 Proposal Submission - Page 61/89 indicates contract award of 25 May 2018 for the purposes of the IMS, however page 81/89 indicates for the purposes of the proposal, to use a contract award date of September 2018. Can the Government please address this perceived conflict in the solicitation?

Answer 33: See Answer 3

Submitted 04 Feb 2018

Question 34: I just noticed that it appears this question/response may not have been incorporated into the mod: Question 32

Answer 34: While a change was not included in the amendment 0002, Section 3.1.6, paragraph d is applicable to COST type CLINs only.

Question 35: Per the subject RFP, we are requesting a total quantity of 3 TD-127 UHF DAMA Multiplexers (2 additional Multiplexers) be provided to mitigate the potential for nonfunctional products. Should the Government provide GFP in a condition suitable for its intended use, the quantity I for this item is sufficient.

Answer 35: The Government will provide only one (1) TD-1271 as stated in Section H of the RFP. However, per Section 7.2 of Attachment 1 Statement of Work, the Government has allowed travel to provide access to the awardee for the following:

・ Up to three (3) trips to PEO C4I or the NSA to attend TIMs;

・ Up to three (3) trips to the SSC Pacific Laboratory to verify interface operation between the TD-1271 and the KGV-11A; and

・ Up to two (2) visits to the SSC Pacific Laboratory to verify the KGV-11M operation.

Submitted 22 Feb 2018