Next Gen ATC Radio RFI Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) for a Next Generation Air Traffic Control Radio Replacement acquisition by the U.S. Army. The Army is seeking information from companies that can deliver approximately 2,500 VHF and UHF radio transmitters and receivers to replace legacy air traffic control assets. The radios must be compliant with Department of Defense Risk Management Framework 2.0 and Army Cyber Security requirements and be commercially available, non-developmental items. The Army is requesting information on the companies' radio offerings, including capabilities, cyber security features, production and delivery plans, and logistical support. White papers are due by June 28, 2024. This RFI is for information gathering purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation or commitment to award a contract.
View the file
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
| Next Gen Air Traffic Control Radio RFI Q&As | |
| Question | USG Response |
| I am hoping to find out if the subject effort is a new requirement or a follow-on to an existing contract? If the latter, can I please find out the incumbent contractor's name and contract number? I appreciate your time and help. | This is not a follow-on. It is for informational purposes only. |
| Per item 4.2 we will need to get PDPA’s in place with the Army support contractors. Please advise on how best to initiate those. | Paragraph 4.2 of the RFI identified three personnel (Jason Gullotta, Jennifer Wade, and Rahn McCollough) who, at that time, would have required a Proprietary Data Protection Agreement (PDPA); however, current realignment of personnel no longer has them, or any other contractor, in the program and therefore a PDPA is not required. |
| Contractor intends to respond to the RFI and is currently working on its response. There will be some proprietary information included in our submission and per item 4.2 of the RFI we will need to get a Proprietary Data Protection Agreement (PDPA) in place with the named government support contractors (each of you). To facilitate getting such disclosure agreements in place I have attached a draft of our template. Please make the appropriate edits to the yellow highlighted items that are specific to each of your entities. If all looks to be in order, please return a signed copy to me for countersignature. | Paragraph 4.2 of the RFI identified three personnel (Jason Gullotta, Jennifer Wade, and Rahn McCollough) who, at that time, would have required a Proprietary Data Protection Agreement (PDPA); however, current realignment of personnel no longer has them, or any other contractor, in the program and therefore a PDPA is not required. |
| The RFI states that the radio must be compliant with Department of Defense (DoD) Risk Management Framework (RMF) 2.0/Army Cyber Security requirements. Can the Army be more specific on what Army Cyber Security requirements are applicable to this procurement? | The Army is requiring all army Information Technology/Operations Technology systems to comply with not only RMF (8510.01), but also RMF 2.0 requirements NLT 30 Sep 2024. Also, all Army systems are required to comply with AR 25-2 (Information Assurance) requirements. Citing specific requirements for the radios is accomplished via the RMF process – there is no way to outline all requirements for RMF or RMF 2.0 until each radio has undergone RMF/RMF 2.0 assessment |
| Would the Army consider radios manufactured in Trade Agreements Act compliant countries for this acquisition? This would benefit the Army in taking advantage of already established production lines, economies of scale, mature supply chains, and quality control procedures. | The “Trade Agreements Act” requires the components for the radio to be of US origin or from “designated” countries in the Act that is US Public Law. Countries of origin listed within TAA are compliant with TAA requirements for the acquisition, however, please note that all components must be TAA compliant, not just the radio manufacturing. For example, if the radios were primarily manufactured in the US, but had a component from a non-TAA compliant country of origin (North Korea for example), this would still prohibit the radios, as North Korea is a prohibited country. Using a more specific example, if I had a Cisco router that was manufactured in a TAA compliant country, but I bought an SFP from Iran, I could not use the SFP, even though the router was TAA compliant. Please see the following link for TAA information https://vsc.gsa.gov/drupal/node/138 |
| The RFI shows three support contractors (Jason Gullotta, Jennifer Wade, and Rahn McCollough). I received an email from Jason that he is not longer on this project. Is there a replacement for Jason and have there been any other changes with the support contractors? Please reply at your earliest convenience. | Paragraph 4.2 of the RFI identified three personnel (Jason Gullotta, Jennifer Wade, and Rahn McCollough) who, at that time, would have required a Proprietary Data Protection Agreement (PDPA); however, current realignment of personnel no longer has them, or any other contractor, in the program and therefore a PDPA is not required. |
https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvsc.gsa.gov%2Fdrupal%2Fnode%2F138&data=05%7C02%7Csara.a.wilbourn.civ%40army.mil%7C2415d7385840475989c408dc8a263fd6%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638537145007628195%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9VfRRptA4fKgN61%2Fla8HfOFGsln%2FfSgAtwQuh4muE9U%3D&reserved=0
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .