Mod 02_Atch (L-1) QA_REV 2_N6134025R0006_18 Mar 25.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134025R0006
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for Solicitation N6134025R0006, a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) technology refresh and system configuration upgrade for the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) MH-60R Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The document contains 38 substantive questions and corresponding government responses addressing technical, cybersecurity, past performance, and contractual details, with key clarifications including updates to the Statement of Work (SOW), Risk Management Framework (RMF) controls, visual database requirements, and past performance submission guidelines.
The solicitation is limited to Training Systems Contract IV (TSC IV) awardees and involves upgrading the MH-60R simulator from SC18 to SC24 configuration, with specific focus on technical refresh of systems like video distribution, motion seats, and cybersecurity infrastructure. Notable government responses include confirmations about OCONUS past performance relevance, clarification of subcontractor past performance requirements, updates to cybersecurity controls, and provisions for future Government Furnished Information (GFI) related to aircraft configuration manuals and interface control documents. The Q&A process demonstrates detailed technical collaboration between potential contractors and the Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command to refine solicitation requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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
Sheet1
| Question # | Subject | Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Specs, Attachment, etc.) | Specific Question | Date Submitted | Final Government Response |
| 1 | GFI | Attachment 5 RSNF GFI List | Please provide all GFI line items marked in Date Provided column with RFP | 2/11/25 | GFI Line Items provided by USG via DoD Safe on 12 Feb 24 |
| 2 | OCONUS Travel | SOW 3.2.4 | SOW 3.2.4 is incomplete/truncated. Please provide all SOW requirements from this paragraph to the end of the SOW document. | 2/11/25 | The final line of SOW Para 3.2.4 Should read "…..prior to OCONUS travel."the SOW has been revised accordingly |
| 3 | DD254 | DD254 | Block 13 refers to FTSS V Addendum A - RSNF COMS PWS and Addendum B CIS PWS. Please clarify if applicable to this RFP. | 2/11/25 | "-Contractors shall perform work in accordance with FTSS V Addendum A– RSNF COMS, Performance Work Statement (PWS) # 6643-A-XXXX, Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) and Addendum B – RSNF, CIS Performance Work Statement (PWS) # 6643-B-XXXX, Contractor Instructional Services (CIS)." Should read: -Contractors shall perform work in accordance with TSC IV and Attachment 1 Statement of Work (SOW) 240042. DD-254 has been revised accordingly. |
| 4 | CPARS | RFP, Section L.2.4, page 41 of 53 | The third paragraph states "The offeror shall provide all available CPAR's for each past performance reference within fourteen (14) calendar days from the Final RFP release date." Please confirm that three (3) years of CPARs is sufficient. | 2/20/25 | Three (3) years of CPARS are sufficient. RFP Section L.2.4 has been updated accordingly. |
| 5 | CDRLS | SOW 3.1.1.6.h | B002 references different DID than CDRL B002 DD-1423. Please confirm correct DID reference. | 2/20/25 | Updated SOW to match the DD-1423 to read DI-ADMN-81250B |
| 6 | CDRLS | SOW 3.1.1.6.h | B006 CPSMR is referenced but there is no associated B006 DD-1423. Please confirm if this is a CDRL deliverable. | 2/20/25 | SOW updated to remove reference to B006 |
| 7 | GFI | Attachment 5 RSNF GFI List | Please provide all GFI line items marked in Date Provided column with RFP | 2/20/25 | Question Removed |
| 8 | OCONUS Travel | SOW 3.2.4 | SOW 3.2.4 is incomplete/truncated. Please provide all SOW requirement from this paragraph to the end of the SOW document. | 2/20/25 | Question Removed |
| 9 | CDRLS | PEDDAL, O&M, COTS Manual, PMS and TSSD CDRLs (E001-E005) | Is it the Intent of the USG to have the contractor keep the deliverable CDRLs in the legacy format (as provided in the RFP GFI), OR transition the GFI documents into the new format (this contract's DIDs), even for drawings that will not be impacted by the scope of work? | 2/20/25 | Yes, the contractor shall retain the format of the source data (GFI), and only provide any updates resulting from the modifications under this task. Manuals were authored in MS Word. The DID for the drawings is the same (DI-SESS-81000), the name changed from PDAL to PEDDAL between Rev. E & F. The changes to the DID do not present a change on the format the drawings are delivered. Source files on .dwg and exported to .pdf for printing (11"x17") and tech manual use. |
| 10 | RMF | SOW 3.1.3.2.3 | SOWS 3.1.3.2.3 appears to have references to controls from DODI 8500.2, which was effectively superseded by RMF. Can the Government confirm DCBP-1 and ECVP-1 are referring to 8500.2 controls? If not, can the Government provide the control verbiage or confirm the requirement is not reference any documents | 2/20/25 | SOW Para 3.1.3.2.3 updated to direct use of Cybersecurity Risk Management Framework |
| 11 | ATO | CDRL A00Q | Can USG confirm that the only elements of the ATO package required to be delivered by the Contractor are the ones listed in the "Annex to CDRL A00Q"? | 2/20/25 | Yes, however the attached CDRL has been updated and identifies the elements of the RMF package. |
| 12 | Tech Refresh | RFP | Does the Technology Refresh of the Video Distribution System include upgrading the cameras used to capture video of the OFT and WTT student stations? | 2/20/25 | Yes, the cameras are part of the Video distribution system as listed in SOW 3.2.2.b, and are needed to provide instructors with images of the students and Aircraft Operating Equipment for Debriefing. |
| 13 | Device | RFP | Does the RSNF TOFT require the device to perform Dipping Sonar mechanical simulation (dip to dip) in OFT Mode (not to be confused with WTT mode or TOFT mode)? | 2/20/25 | No, the Dipping Sonar mechanical simulation not currently operational in OFT mode, and is not required in OFT mode. Reference O&M section 1.6.1 |
| 14 | Upgrade | SOW 3.2.2.g | Is the intent that the contractor should propose upgrade to the RSNF ACME Motion Seat as part of follow-on ECP? | 2/20/25 | Yes, ACME motion seats are intended to be part of the follow-on ECP |
| 15 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.11. | What does the USG mean by "data structure format"? | 2/20/25 | The Contractor shall maintain the data repository provided by the Government in its original format. For instance, if the Government provides a Git repository, the Contractor shall maintain, update, and deliver the Git repository in conjunction with SPP deliverables. Conversion to other repository systems like Mercurial, SVN, or Perforce is not permitted. |
| 16 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.10.3 | Is USG requesting for the contractor and USG to conduct a joint Cold Start test using the Cold Start Procedures of the SPP prior to VRTA? | 2/20/25 | No, contractor will execute cold start test prior to DT-C1. The Government will lead and execute the SPP procedures, including but not limited to the cold start, prior to the VRTA. The Contractor will provide support during this Government-led event. SOW para 3.2.3.10.3.a has been updated. |
| 17 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.10.3 | If USG is requesting for the contractor and USG to conduct a joint Cold Start test, then is the assumption that VRTA is only intended to address readiness for Performance and functional testing ONLY (not including Cold Start)? | 2/20/25 | SPP execution shall be performed IAW SOW 3.2.3.10.3. The VRTA is the formal evaluation to determine if a system is ready to progress into the testing phase. |
| 18 | Past Performance Clarification | RFP and SOW | Section M.2.2 Relevancy on page 49 of 53, bottom of 5th paragraph states that for evaluation purposes "OCONUS work performance (SOW 1.1)" must be supported in the Past Performance Volume. SOW 1.1 is simply called "Scope" on page 1 of the SOW. The SOW states nothing about OCONUS other than stating "The RSNF MH-60R TOFT is located at Al Jubail Naval Air Base, in KSA." Please confirm that past performance is valid anywhere outside the Continental U.S., not just KSA. | 2/20/25 | Confirmed. For the purposes of past performance any location outside the continental U.S. will be a relevent submission. Removed Reference in RFP to SOW 1.1. |
| 19 | GFI | RFP | The GFI Specification for the RSNF MH-60R TOFT references to the NATOPS and NATIPs for implementation of physical panels, functional capabilities, performance thresholds,etc. These two manuals have not been provided as part of the RFP GFI. How is the contractor to understand the cockpit difference and functional/performance differences between SC18 and SC24 without these documents? | 2/20/25 | The NATOPS and NATIP documents are not yet available for SC24 upgrade they will be provided as soon as they become available. However, GFI includes the PTVs, Differences Training Material, RSNF SCM for SC18 and SC20, RSNF SC18 & SC20 NATOPS/NATIP, SC18 ICDs, and design/requirements documentation (IRS/IDD, SRS, SSDP) for SC24. These documents are provided to understand the differneces betweeen SC18 and SC24 |
| 20 | GFI | Atch_05_RSNF GFI list | Will USG provide the contractor with the ATG test procedures and Test Results to help the contractor the determine the potential gap between the existing aero model performance and the RFP requirements? | 2/26/25 | The Government provided the GFI A006-Test procedures for the RSNF TOFT. The Government will not provide test results. |
| 21 | Subcontractor Past Performance | RFP, Section L.1.3.3, 2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE | Is the Offereror required to submit past performance for any subcontractor performing at least 15% of work? | 2/26/25 | Yes, the offeror is required to submit past performance for any subcontractor performing at least 15% of the work. |
| 22 | Subcontractor Past Performance | RFP, Section L.1.3.3, 2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE | If the Offereror is required to submit past performance for subcontractors performing at least 15% of work, can the USG confirm that subcontractors performing at least 15% of the proposed price must submit past performance references in addition to the references provided by the Prime? (i.e., the Prime submits (3) Past Performance References and (3) Subcontractor Past Performance References) | 2/26/25 | The terms of the solicitation permit an offeror to sumit a maximum of three past performance references total. Offerors are permitted to submit past performance references for proposed prime and any entity proposed to perform at least 15% of the proposed price. |
| 23 | Past Performance Documetation | No reference made in RFP documents | Please confirm that Federal Procument Database System reports can be used as documentation along with SF33, contracts, CPARS, etc. | 3/4/25 | Federal Procurement Database System (FPDS) Reports cannot be used as past performance documentation. |
| 24 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm RTM 2.1.24.1-2.1.24.39 are the intended cyber controls. The requirements appear to be DIACAP related controls as apposed to RMF. | 3/4/25 | The DIACAP controls have been updated to RMF controls provided in the RTM included with this ammendment. |
| 25 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm the requirement of using Windows Server 2012R2 referenced in 2.1.24.40, 2.1.24.42, and 2.1.24.46. Windows Server 2012R2 end of support was 2023 and therefore conflicts with the 24-month supportability post-RFT requirement in 2.1.24.52. | 3/4/25 | WIN SERVER 2012 is obsolete. The Windows Server OS will need to comply with the 48 month supportability identified in RTM 2.1.24.52 |
| 26 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm the requirement to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 as specified in 2.1.24.47. RHEL6 end of extended support was 2024 and therefore conflicts with the 24-month supportability post-RFT requirement in 2.1.24.52. | 3/4/25 | RHEL 6 is obsolete. The RHEL OS version will need to comply with the 48 month supportability identified in RTM 2.1.24.52 |
| 27 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Confirm the requirement to use Cisco WS-C3750X-48T-S switch as specified in 2.1.24.28. That switch family series is currently end of sale (since approximately 2016) and therefore will be difficult to procure and maintain. Would the Government consider removing the specific switch designation and allow and NIAP approved switch? | 3/4/25 | The Goverment has updated the RTM requirement with a NIAP approved switch. Updated RTM provided with this amendment. |
| 28 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Confirm the intent to use Symantec Anti-Virus as specified in 2.1.24.49. Would the Government consider other anti-virus solutions, such as Trellix, which is part of the ESS security suite currently used by the Navy? | 3/4/25 | RTM 2.1.24.49 was updated to state the Government will accept Trellix and any other antivirus solutions aproved by the Navy. |
| 29 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM does not specify the CONUS gaming area extents. Provide the CONUS gaming area extents. | 3/4/25 | The Goverment updated RTM 2.1.21.3 requirement and removed the CONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 30 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM does not specify the OCONUS gaming area is required, but there are requirements that indicate an OCONUS Saudi database is needed. Add requirement for OCONUS database and specify OCONUS gaming area extents. | 3/4/25 | The Goverment has added the OCONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 31 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM 2.1.21.7 High Fidelity Area Requirements does not contain any requirements or extents. Provide high fidelity area requirements and extents for both CONUS and OCONUS gaming areas. | 3/4/25 | The Goverment has added the OCONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 32 | Visual Database | CDRL A007 DID | Provide CDRL A007 DID OT-15-0002 | 3/4/25 | The Government will include DID OT-15-0002 via DoD SAFE as part of this amendment |
| 33 | Visual Database | CDRL A008 DID | Provide CDRL A008 DID OT-15-0001 | 3/4/25 | The Government will include DID OT-15-0001 via DoD SAFE as part of this amendment |
| 34 | CASE C2PO | RFP L.1.1.2 | RFP Section L.1.1.2.a indicates technical factor evaluation is based on Common Acoustic Simulated Environment - Fidelity Improvement (CASE-FI) which is contradictory to SOW 3.2.2.d indicating C2PO. Correct Section L evaluation to be based on C2PO. | 3/13/25 | RFP Section L.1.1.2.a updated to identify the use of CASE C2PO vice CASE-FI as indicated in the SOW 3.2.2.d. |
| 35 | CPI/PPI assessments | Refer to Q&A #8 | Per response to Q&A #8, provide CDRL for CPI Assessment and PPIP and update SOW requirements accordingly. | 3/13/25 | Unable to locate Q&A #8 response with regard to CPI. Please provide additional clarifying information. |
| 36 | Request for GFI | Can USG provide the following GFI to properly propose Cockpit HW configuration deltas: |
a. RSNF SCM for fielded SC18 configuration
b. RSNF SCM for target SC24 configuration
c. RSNF SC18 NATOPS
d. RSNF SC18 NATIP
e. RSNF SC20 NATOPS
f. RSNF SC20 NATIP
g. RSNF SC18 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS
h. RSNF SC20 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS
i. RSNF SC24 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS 3/13/25 the Governement will provide additional GFI as part of this ammendment:
a. RSNF SCM for fielded SC18 and SC20
b. RSNF SC18 NATOPS
c. RSNF SC18 NATIP
d. RSNF SC20 NATOPS
e. RSNF SC20 NATIP
f. RSNF SC18 ICD FAS
g. RSNF SC18 ICD SAS
h. RSNF SC18 ICD MAS
i. RSNF SC18 ICD AVS Documents have been added to the GFI list. See response for question 19 in regard to additional documentation.
| 37 | Clause | Contract TSC IV or Delivery Order | 52.242-17 Government Delay of Work | 3/13/25 | The stated clause is included in the TSC IV contract. |
| 38 | Clause | Contract TSC IV or Delivery Order | 52.245-1 Government Propoerty | 3/13/25 | The stated clause is included in the TSC IV contract. |
| 39 | |||||
| 40 | |||||
| 41 | |||||
| 42 | |||||
| 43 | |||||
| 44 | |||||
| 45 | |||||
| 46 | |||||
| 47 | |||||
| 48 | |||||
| 49 | |||||
| 50 | |||||
| 51 | |||||
| 52 | |||||
| 53 | |||||
| 54 | |||||
| 55 | |||||
| 56 | |||||
| 57 | |||||
| 58 | |||||
| 59 | |||||
| 60 | |||||
| 61 | |||||
| 62 | |||||
| 63 | |||||
| 64 | |||||
| 65 | |||||
| 66 | |||||
| 67 | |||||
| 68 | |||||
| 69 | |||||
| 70 | |||||
| 71 | |||||
| 72 | |||||
| 73 | |||||
| 74 | |||||
| 75 | |||||
| 76 | |||||
| 77 | |||||
| 78 | |||||
| 79 | |||||
| 80 | |||||
| 81 | |||||
| 82 | |||||
| 83 | |||||
| 84 | |||||
| 85 | |||||
| 86 | |||||
| 87 | |||||
| 88 | |||||
| 89 | |||||
| 90 | |||||
| 91 | |||||
| 92 | |||||
| 93 | |||||
| 94 | |||||
| 95 |
Attachment L-1 &"-,Bold"Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) Upgrade - Question & Answer Form &K000000N61340-25-R-0006
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .