Q&A RFP 7 February 2019.pdf
PDF 86 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Battle Force Tactical Network (BFTN) Follow On
- Solicitation number
- N00039-18-R-0058
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding Request for Proposals (RFP) N00039-18-R-0058 from the Department of the Navy for the Battle Force Tactical Network (BFTN) follow-on program. The questions clarify allowable older standards versions for compliance testing up to five years in arrears, note that ship-to addresses will likely be in Portsmouth, Virginia or San Diego, California, and confirm that the system similarity requirement applies to both U.S. and foreign Department of Defense systems including the U.S. Coast Guard. An awarded contract for $41,518,454 went to L3 Technologies of Camden, New Jersey on June 25, 2019 to provide products or services for the BFTN program.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N00039-18-R-0058 Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| Q&A RFP 26 July 2018.pdf | ||
| RFP Amendment 0004 28 August 18.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A BFTN
N00039-18-R-0058
7 February 2019
Question 1: Regarding the Factor 1 - Technical Approach update in RFP Amd 0005, "The Offeror may provide a test report or government certification demonstrating compliance to an older version (up to 5 year) of the standards above", would the government evaluate test report for MIL-STD-461F and MIL- STD-901D, noting that there are not any significant differences between these versions in relation to the system defined in the BFTN specification? Version differences are noted here:
--MIL-STD-910E para. 3.2.1a states: "Items identical or similar to items shock qualified to the requirements of MIL-S-901C, MIL-S-901D, MIL-S-901D with Interim Change No. 1 or 2, or MIL-DTL-901E are acceptable as extension candidates with proper review, approval, and documentation."
--MIL-STD-461G adds CS117 and CS118 which addresses topside equipment and interfaces which are outside the scope of the BFTN system design.
Government Response: For clarification, positive compliance test reports can be to the current version of the standards as listed, or to any version of the standards up to five years in arrears from date of the latest standard. Shock extension letters accompanying test reports that bring the component or system to within this five-year superseding those listed can be provided. For example, a test report validating a system complied to MIL-STD-901D can be submitted as evidence of compliance to MIL- DTL-901E (released on 20JUN2017) if the report is more recent than 20JUN2012.
Question 2: Per Section F of the RFP, the SHIP TO ADDRESS is identified as N/A. Can any further clarification be provided on the Ship to Address or should we assume San Diego?
Government Response: The Government is uncertain of the exact location until Delivery Orders are issued. However, for estimating purposes the Ship-to addresses will either be Portsmouth, VA or San Diego, CA.
Question 3: Does the RFP requirement for system similarity within Department of Defense (DoD) systems apply only to United States DoD, or can it be interpreted to apply to foreign military DoD entities as well?
Government Response: The term DoD is applicable to foreign and U.S. DoD systems. The United States Coast Guard is also included as having applicable U.S. DoD systems due to their interoperability requirements.
Question 4: Regarding the Factor 1 – Technical Approach update in RFP Amd 0005, “The Offeror may provide a test report or government certification demonstrating compliance to an older version (up to 5 year) of the standards above.” Does (up to 5 year) refer to the test report age or the standards version age?
Government Response: Standards version age.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .