PreSolicitation Conference QandA Master Sheet.pdf

Question # RFP Page

RFP

Section/ Paragraph

CLIN/

Clause/

Appendix/At tachment/

Other

Questions/Comments/Recommendations Programmatic /

Technical / Contractual

Government Responses

There are 3 different weight classes outlined in the Draft RFP: Small, Medium, and Large. How many terminals will go on each weight class? Will the masts on those ships be able to support them without further modification?

T The Government requires several options; the number of antennas for each weight class is significantly based on the modernization plan proposed by offerors. The PWS has been updated to clarify.

Will Sealift Command accept the use of smaller terminals on the larger weight classes if link budgets support their use?

T Yes, provided they can close the link and deliver the throughput/bandwidth that the Government requires and meets other contstraints outlined in the PWS. PWS 6.2.2.1.1 has been updated to clarify.

How many terminals will need to be delivered in calendar year 2021 and/or 2022 and beyond? T This is based on the modernization plan and schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

What is the time horizon that Sealift Command would expect to start integrating non-Geosynchronous satellite assets into this contract?

T This is based on the modernization plan and schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

For future non-Geosynchronous SATCOM services, does Sealift Command expect that the terminals it is specifying today will work with those future satellite constellations? If not, does Sealift Command intend to authorize the winning contractor to install a new set of terminals in order to leverage those assets?

T This is based on the modernization plan and schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

What is the current health of the existing satellite antenna masts for each ship? How many will need to have hot metal work done to remediate or replace them? Does Sealift Command expect that the NGW FO awardee will be responsible for this work?

T A Ship survey will be required prior to any modernization of the capabilities. The Offeror will be required to make structural modifications and hot work in accordance with approved TRANSALT requirements.

The RFP Draft mentions Ku-band as primary and X-band as a tertiary option. Will Sealift Command consider a single terminal solution that includes both Ku and X-band frequencies, automatically switched? “Automatically switched” means that no physical changes to the terminal or below-deck modem connection would be required by the crew to switch from one frequency to another.

T

Please reference the difference between current state of sustainment operations which are tied to Ku and L bands and the modernization requirement in PWS Section 6.3 which does not prescribe specific bands. These bands are dependant on offeror's solutions. For the modernization requirement (PWS 6.3), a multi-band antenna solution is acceptable. However, for redundancy two antennas are still required; if an antenna fails, MSC vessels are still required to have connectivity.

6.2.1

If the desire is to have a second, stand-alone X-band terminal, where, specifically, on each deck will they need to be welded? Have blockage zones been considered and mapped out? Have crew safety zones been considered and mapped out already? Will those plans require approval from ABS prior to installation? If so, will Sealift Command be responsible for developing the deck integration documentation set to ABS? And, if either blockage zones or crew safety zones have been mapped out for these new X-band terminals, will Sealift Command share them with prospective bidders?

T

The location of X-band antennas will vary based on the ship class. X-band blockage and safety zones have not been established. A site survey and topside study are required to determine the exact antenna location and permissable exposure limites.ABS approval is required prior to installation. The contractor is responsible to develop deck integration documentation and drawings and submit to MSC. MSC will assist in obtaining final approval from ABS.

6.2.2.1.1 As Sealift Command no doubt knows, there is only one vendor who currently makes an X-Band terminal that coincidentally weighs exactly 222 pounds. Since this is clearly a sole-source specification, has Sealift Command done a Justification And Approval (J&A) to procure this terminal?

T No, the Government has not completed a J&A. The Government requires a Military X-band Antenna option, but has not specified a particular antenna to meet this requirement.

Page 20 DRFP

6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2 Which weight class ships will be targeted for X-Band terminals? T As stated in PWS 6.2.2.1.1, optional X-Band antennas shall be provided for all weight class ships; smaller antennas may be utilized on larger class ships; provided the smaller size does not diminish throughput capabilities.

Other than procurement and installation, what role does Sealift Command expect the awardee to have in service level agreements, operations, or technical support for the stand-alone X-Band terminals?

P

The X-Band antennas must be integrated with the rest of the vendor proposed NGW modernization systems. Maintenance, repair, and life cycle support of the hardware associated with the proposed systems extends to any antennas integrated with those systems. SATCOM Service and operations of the X-Band antennas will be the responsibility of the Government.

What is the requirement for EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) and EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility) standards?

T The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

13 Will MSC sponsor WGS certification for the X-band terminal? T The Government will not sponsor WGS Certification for the X-band antenna. The Governement will only accept antennas that are already WGS Certified.

14 Will the Radome need to conform to Radar Cross Section requirements? T MSC ships do not have a Radar Cross Section (RCS) requirement.

15 15 6.1.3.2.1.4 Serial BER is a legacy requirement for TDM based circuitry, such as T1/DS3/OC-x and not applicable for modern connectivity options. We recommend that the Government remove this requirement.

T The Government will verify and update the end-to-end service requirements with the Final RFP.

16 17 6.1.4.2.3 The first sentence requires offers to support a min of 105 end user circuits. The next sentence requires offerors to design and deliver an aggregate of 170 end user circuits. The backhaul CLINs are listed as 1 each.

Will the Government confirm that Offeror's are to price an aggregate demand of 170 end-user circuits?

T The total number of ships in the MSC fleet is 170, including MARAD. The backhaul should be sized to support all end users. The terrestrial backhaul CLINs are broken out to cover an aggregate cost per region.

17 17 6.1.4.2.5 PWS 6.1.4.2.5 mentions 105 Ethernet circuits. Appendix A identifies the terminal utilizing iDirect X5/X7 modems which are operated in Layer3 mode in IP, vs Ethernet which is a Layer2 standard. We recommend removing the word Ethernet.

P The Government has updated the PWS.

18 20 6.2.2.1.1 Above Deck Equipment

Can the government provide addition physical, RF and operational minimum performance to differentiate the small, meduim and large terminal classes?

T This is based on the modernization plan and schedule as proposed by Industry. The Government is looking for the best modernization capability and best technical approach that Industry has to offer.

19 20

6.2.2.1.1 and Attach 1 Sec B

Pricing Worksheet

Above Deck Equipment

In the pricing, there is no separate CLINs for the 3 terminal sizes for each primary and secondary networks.

Will the Government add separate CLINs for SMALL MEDIUM and LARGE for the primary and secondary networks with evaluated quantities for each?

C

These categories are provided as description/narratives and do not specify to Industry the approach that is required. This is based on the modernization plan/schedule as proposed by Industry. The Government is looking for the best modernization capability and best technical approach that Industry has to offer.

20 20 6.2.2.3.2.

Ashore and Afloat

Carry On Can the government provide additional physicals like size and weight limits, RF and operational performance requirements like minimum setup time?

T The PWS has been updated to clarify.

21 14 6.1.3.2.1 CFE

The section states CFE as Customer Furnished Equipment which is incosistent with Fig 1 and other sections. Can the Government clarify if CFE is meant to be Contractor Furnished Equipment?

T Thank you for this feedback, this will be corrected back to the PWS.

22 15 6.1.3.2.1.3 TDMA and FDMA

Availabilities The section shows Ao of 99.7% for FDMA, and 99.5% for TDMA where as these numbers are reversed in Fig 1.

Can the Government clarify?

T Thank you for this feedback, this will be corrected back to the PWS.

23 22 6.3.3.2 Adobe/AutoCAD Will the government allow drawings to be submitted in PDF format (Adobe Acrobat)? P This is a Government requirement and should be submitted as AutoCAD and Adobe.

The PWS will be updated to clarify the Government's expectations.

24 131 L2.0.7 Evaluators

The Draft RFP identifies six non-government advisory companies that will assist the Government with the BVTO source selection process. However, the Draft RFP does not identify which portions of the proposal each company will be evaluating.

Question: Can the Government identify which Factors/Subfactors each non-governmental advisory company will be evaluating?

C

As specified in the draft RFP: The non-government advisor may have access to all aspects of the offeror’s proposal. The Use of Non-Government Advisors will not be designated evaluators and will not be evaluating Factors/Subfactors.

25 24 6.3.8.1 SIPR access to Web

Portal Will the government be supplying or sponsoring a “Cross Domain Solution” (CDS) to make unclassified web portal data available on classified systems (i.e. SIPRnet)?

P

SIPR connectivity is required within 90 days of award. Full "single pane of glass" visibility is required within 1 year of award. If delays are at Government fault, the vendor will not be penalized for the length of delay.

26 32 6.9 Information Assurance

Will the government define the categorization level of Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability required? T The categorization level of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability is currently moderate, moderate, and moderate respectively. The Government does not foresee any change in the near future.

27 Page 8 C5.1 Scope

Will the Government define failover coverage in better detail?

How does the government view fail-over for each segment of the communications infrastructure (deployed terminal, RF Up/down Link, Satellite, Ground Station Teleport, terrestrial connectivity to government demarcation)?

Does it refer to the space segment or just to the terrestrial and teleport infrastructure?

Does the failover coverage to the space segment refer to the Ku service being able to failover to the L Band service?

This Question is the only question that refers to a Voice over IP requirement-There are no other specific requirements in the rest of the draft RFP for VOIP.

What is the Government ConOps for VoIP services?

Where will these VoIP calls terminate?

What are the requirements for Government VoIP services?

Assuming the successful SatCom service provider can support VoIP services on its RF and terrestrial network, what other capabilities must the provider provide for MSC to be successful in completing a VoIP call?

T Failover is described in PWS 6.1.4.3. The PWS has been updated to clarify.

28 Page 9 C6.1.1.1 Portability

What do you mean by portability and can you give a real live example for what portability request would look like?

Also when you mention one frequency band to another are you addressing Ku to Ka or Ku to X? Please provide further details.

P

Portability is the ability to relocate COMSATCOM services. If service is initially procured for an area of responsibility (AOR) or region, but during the period of performance, the Government has a diminished need for service in that AOR, but an increased need in a different AOR, the Government may shift that service to the new

AOR.

Portability may include changes in band, this includes, but is not limited to changing from Ku to Ka or Ku to X. While it is unlikely that MSC will change bands during the period of performance of an individual task order, the possibility exists, depending on the equipment proposed by offerors for the modernization plan.

29 Page 9 C6.1.2.1.1 Primary Regions At a given time, what are the maximum numbers of ships you expect to operate in each primary region? T

The Government cannot reasonably define a maximum number of ships operating in a given region. Ship concentrations are dependant on mission requirements, which are ever-changing. The Government will update the anticipated number of ships operating in the given regions with the final RFP. These numbers are to give offerors a reasonable expectation of ship concentrations, but in no way limit the Governments ability to operate more ships in that region should a mission require the Government to do so.

30 Page 12 C6.1.2.2.1 Transit Regions At a given time, what are the maximum numbers of ships you expect to operate in each transit region? T

The Government cannot reasonably define a maximum number of ships operating in a given region. Ship concentrations are dependant on mission requirements, which are ever-changing. The Government will update the anticipated number of ships operating in the given regions with the final RFP. These numbers are to give offerors a reasonable expectation of ship concentrations, but in no way limit the Governments ability to operate more ships in that region should a mission require the Government to do so.

31 Page 14 C6.1.3.2.1

Appendix A / Attachment 6

REQUIRED

SPACE SEGMENT

QUALITY

Paragraph references Appendix A which shows Kymeta as one of the terminal types – Where is the Kymeta antenna deployed?

What vessel or Carry-on asset is it used on?

Does the Government currently have hardware sparing pools for maintenance and repair of current terminals and modem infrastructure to support infrastructure if hardware obsolescence has occurred?

If so would the Government define spares on-hand?

T

The Kymeta is a transportable terminal that can utilized any where that MSC operates, both afloat and ashore. The Government will not provide further information on Kymeta spares. Maintenance, repair, and sparing of the Kymeta terminals is outside the scope of this contract. Under the modernization plan, the maintenance, repair, and sparing of any proposed carry-on system will be within the scope of this contract.

32 Page 17 C6.1.4.2.3.1

NETWORK

SIZING

How many simultaneous operations do you envision at any given period?

How many simultaneous operations should the contractor plan for each primary region and transit region?

T

The Government will update the anticipated number of ships operating in the given regions with the final RFP. These numbers are to give offerors a reasonable expectation of ship concentrations, but in no way limit the Governments ability to operate more ships in that region should a mission require the Government to do so.

33 Page 17

C6.1.4.3.3

SHIP FAILOVER

CAPABILITY

When the Government decides to operate solely on GFE, what extent of managed network services does the Government expect the contractor to provide to GFE equipment.

How will the service provider be evaluated for SLA calculation when the Government furnishes the terminal and/or Teleport equipment?

Will the contractors Network Operations Center have visibility to these assets? If not, we presume that they would not be included in the Uptime/Downtime calculations and SLA requirements

P

When the Government switches away from the vendor provided network, the contractor is not responsible for outages, service levels, and those time periods will not be included in uptime/downtime calculations. The contractor NOC will not have visibility of these assets during these periods. The contractor is still required to provide maintenance and repair actions to antenna systems integrated with the shipboard NGW network.

34 Page 18

C6.2.2

NGW FO

SERVICE

REQUIREMENTS

Please confirm that at the start of this contract, the contractor will need to provide Ku/L-Band and X band SatCom service or will X-band be WGS that is handled entirely by the Government?

What direction will the Government give to the previous vendor to facilitate a smooth transition?

What information has the Government directed to be shared about each terminal and when will it be provided?

How many days has the Government directed for each terminal’s transition after transition material has been provided?

How will the service provider receive this?

P The Government refers Industry to the sustainment requirement Section of the PWS for the start of this contract. Transitional solution within the means of "modernization requirements" are based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry.

35 Page 18 C6.2.1.1

SUSTAINMENT

MANAGED

SERVICE

What requirements does the Government have that explains where (at what Latitude) Ku Service ends and the L- Band service starts?

T Please refer to PWS 6.1.2 which explains the Primary and Transit Regions and global coverage requirement.

36 Page 19

C6.2.1.1.5.1 MSOC

Would the Government provide a high level description of the MSOC and define the services required at the MSOC’s?

T The MSOC will provide similar services to any other terminal described in Appendix A, Technical Specification; characteristics of the terminal will be added to Appendix A, Technical Specification.

37 Page 19

C6.2.1.1.6.1

CARRY-ON

SATCOM

CAPABILITIES

Would the Government provide more details of the requirements of the Carry On terminal. Is this a Tactical Terminal?

What are the size, weight and power (SWaP) requirements and any specific maritime or MIL-STD requirements the terminal must meet?

T These Specifics are provided in Attachment 3 to the RFP, entitled Technical Specifications 6.2.1.1.6

38 Page 19

C6.2.2

NGW

MODERNIZATIO

N

When do you expect the contractor to begin the modernization program? P This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

39 Page 19

C6.2.2.1.1

MODERNIZED

EQUIPMENT

What requirements and limitations does MCS have on ruggedized terminals?

What limits are placed on terminal reconfigurations to support multiple band antenna?

Is MSC considering dual band terminals that can be configured to operate on different frequency bands?

T This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

40 Page 19

C6.2.2.1.3

MODERNIZED

EQUIPMENT

Do you require X band service as well through the Primary and Transit regions?

Is the contractor required to provide the X band service or is it handled by MSC?

T

MSC NGW operates as a separate network enclave from Navy CBSP. The X-Band antennas must be integrated with the shipboard NGW communications systems. X-band SATCOM service to the additional antenna will not be required through this contract.

41 Page 20

6.2.2.1.1

ABOVE DECK

EQUIPMENT

Will the Government define classes of ships by small, medium and large weight classes that terminals will be installed on?

Will the Government confirm whether each vessel will require at least two stabilized primary, secondary and tertiary terminals per ship to minimize interruptions in service due to blockage?

T The Government requires several options; the number of antennas for each weight class is significantly based on the modernization plan proposed by offerors. Specific information describing shipboard requirements will be included with the final RFP.

42 Page 20

C6.2.2.3.1

MODERNIZED

SERVICE

Do all 104 vessels need to be modernized or do you have some vessels equipped with modern terminals? What is the MCS modernization schedule for the fleet?

Will MSC consider Ka band as a primary solution with Ku as a secondary and L-Band/X-Band as tertiary for modernized service?

Where will the modernization work be performed?

What are the priorities for the ships?

T/P

This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed and looking the NGW primary mission ships and maintenance schedules.

43 Page 21 C6.3.1.1

TRANSITION

SUPPORT PLAN

How and when will the contractor receive existing As-Built drawings to develop detailed cutover transition plans? P Offerors should provide a notional transition plan as part of their proposals. The existing As-built drawings will be provided to the vendor at award.

44 Page 21

C6.3.2.1

MODERNIZATIO

N PLAN

When will MCS require a vendor modernization plan and schedule?

What type of requirements should the vendor expect in the RFP and what interaction should the vendor expect post award from the government and from the current contract holder?

How will the final RFP capture the government’s desired modernization schedule?

Does the Government require modernization work to be performed during specific ships maintenance availabilities?

P

This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed and looking the NGW primary mission ships and maintenance schedules.

45 Page 21

C6.3.2.2

MODERNIZATIO

N PLAN

Is the modernization expected to be completed 3 years from the time the Government provides the initial order for the modernization activity or three years from the award of this contract?

P This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. The timeline is not prescribed per year. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed.

46 Page 21 C6.3.3.1.1

CONFIGURATION

MANAGEMENT

Please define what a Fleet concentration area means? P This is provided VIA the Coverage Zones and will be provided as an attachment to the

RFP.

47 Page 22

C6.3.3.4.1

EQUIPMENT

REFRESH

Our modernization plan will already have a technical refresh plan for the CFE at the Teleport, terrestrial infrastructure and the ships – what additional technology refresh are you referring to?

P The modernization effort represents a significant overhaul of MSC capabilites. The equipment refresh is to account for potential smaller upgrades (e.g., new modem model, upgraded routers)

48 Page 23

C6.3.7.1 TRAINING

What are the location requirements for a training lab?

What type of Government Furnished space/ facilities can the vendor expect?

What are the specific requirements for the setup of the lab?

T

Two NGW training sessions are required per year. Class held at the CIVMAR Support Unit (CSU) East facility at Naval Station Norfolk. There are a maximum of 12 students per class. Training duration is 2 days (1 day in-class / 1 day in the lab). The PWS has been updated to clarify.

49 Page 27

C6.5.4.3.1

DAILY SERVICE

REPORT

Would the Government define an end-to-end circuit, how many end-to-end circuits are currently active on a typical day?

How many daily reports does the current contractor produce based on the reporting requirements in this section?

T The Government will not provide any further detail on this question.

50 Page 30

C6.6.1

FREQUENCY

CLEARANCE

AND APPROVALS

Does the government require the contractor to obtain site licenses / host nation agreements to operate the carry-on equipment in foreign nations?

If so, how much lead time will the contractor have to obtain the HNA or site license?

C Yes, the Government will require the contractor to obtain site licences / host nation agreements. Specifics will be clarified with the Final RFP.

51 Page 47

H - Special Contract

Requirements

OUTAGE

CREDITS

Prior Government contracts have included the reasons stated in this section for not applying the outage credits.

In addition, the requirement below have also been included in the reason for not applying the outage credits.

• A third-party network service provider, such as terrestrial network connectivity services or a teleport providers RF chain

• Failure or malfunction of the equipment, applications, or systems not owned or controlled by SELLER/Contract award winner

Respectfully request that MSC add these two reasons to Sub paragraph b “Outage credits do not apply for:"

C No, additional language will not be included.

52 136 & 146

L4.2.2 & M2.2.A.4

Volume Organization

Subfactor 4:

Information

Assurance (IA), Reference PWS paragraph 6.9

Section L states that the Technical/Management Volume shall be organized to include "(7) Subfactor 4 – Total End to End Availability and Resiliency". Section M specifies Subfactor 4 as "4. Subfactor 4: Information Assurance (IA), Reference PWS paragraph 6.9". Will the Government please clarify the disprecency? Sectioin L.4.2.2 is the only place in the RFI that references 'Total End to End Availability and Resiliency' and only place in the entire Draft RFP that has the word 'Resiliency'.

T The Government will review and revise to clarify.

53 14

6.1.3.1 & 6.1.2 Attachment 6

Is it the Govnerment's intent to operate all three of the Ku terminals specified in the Technical Specifications attachement in each of the ideitified regions in section 6.1.2? To support the Kymetta antenna in each of the specified regions may prove unattainable in open water given the antenan's poor performance and the regulatory compliance constraints that should be maintained. Will the Government consider removing the Kymetta from the requirements or specifing a smaller area of coverage in which the system will operate?

T The Government requirements are as stated.

54 15

6.1.3.2.1.4 6.1.3.2.1.9

Terrestrial Segment Serial connection bit error rate (BER)

Will the BER test be required for both the Primary and secondary service offerings? The Government is requesting an IP-based service that will not include any serial connections at the remote modem or the commercial teleport.

Will the Government remove the requirement for a Serial BER test?

T The Government will verify and update the end-to-end service requirements with the Final RFP.

55 14

6.1.3.2.1 End-to-End Performance

Requirements

The current program requires remote management and control of the remote ship terminal to support troubleshooting and anaomly analysis for MSC. Will the Government confirm and stipulate that this is still required or will on-board technicians be available for the contract?

P The Government Requirement is as stated.

56 15

6.1.3.2.1.4 Space Segment

The Government describes link availability as 99.7% for FDMA and 99.5% for TDMA satellite links. This has historically been lower (~97%) for maritime applications and contracts. Will the Government please confirm the satellite link availability required?

T The Government Requirement is as stated.

57 16

6.1.3.2.1.9 End-to-End Ao

MSC does not operate any serial circuits for connectivity at this time and there is no way to practically measure this SLA. Will the Government please remove the BER requirement?

T The Government will verify and update the end-to-end service requirements with the Final RFP.

58 20

6.2.2, 6.2.2.1.1 Above Deck Equipment

Para 6.2.2 defines three ADE and BDE configurations as small, medium and large. Both the medium and large options raise concerns that the existing shipboard locations will not support the considerable weight and size increase. The 100-240 percent increase in dead weight and wind force loads will likely necessitate extensive engineering efforts from MSC and include naval architectural engineering approvals from MSCHQ-N7 and ABS.

And not to mention, new antenna locations may necessitate EMC topside analysis studies through other government organizations such as NSWC Dahlgren. The requirements outlined seem to be a lot higher that previously provided RFIs. Will the Government please confirm the size and weight requirements for the antenna systems and include any mounting considerations for installation?

T The Government Requirement is as stated.

59 3213 6.9

Information Assurance

Section 6.9 outlines the requirement to perform significant IA work in terms of RMF certification. Will the Government please consider adding a CLIN to the pricing sheet for this work?

T The PWS and CLIN Structure will be updated with the final RFP.

60 134-135 L.2.2 Table L1

The Government outlines a total of 30 pages for the Technical / Management subfactor. Will the Government please extend the page limit to 50 pages? Will the Government consider removing coverage maps and network diagrams from page counts?

C The Government will review and provide updates to the page counts within the RFP.

61 146

M2.2; A; 4 Subfactor 4:

Information Assurance

This subfactor is only focused on the CIAQ, however the RFP requires IA support with the RMF package development and management. Cyber security will also be required with the web tool. Will the Government consider expanding this subfactor to evaluate the additional IA and Cyber efforts such as the contractor'soverall Cybrsecurity capability/approach and RMF accredidation plan, and not just the CIAQ?

T The Government does not intend to expand Subfactor 4.

62 147 M2.3 & L5.1.2

Small Business Factor

Will the Government please confirm that the small business participation factor calculations are exclusive of commodities such as satellite bandwidth?

C The Government will review for consideration back to the RFP.

63 21-22

6.3.3 Installation

For the installation - the write-up seems vague regarding the specific rolls and responsibilities divided between the Government and contractor, e.g. engineering services, testing evolutions, shipping, cranes services, etc. There is no discussion of requirements for welding and specific hardware installation onboard a ship other than the installer needs to have aluminum welding qualifications, and which specific aluminum welding qualifications are needed are not specified. Also, the fact that 98% of the ships are steel, not aluminum seems ignored. Will the Government specify who is responsible to remove/dispose of equipment being replaced? Does the Government plan to reuse the existing racks? What is the responsibility division between contractor and the ship’s existing SIPR and NIPR networks since the whole LAN will have to meet the newer RMF cybersecurity requirements and receive a new ATO? Will there be a telephony line quantity requirement?

T The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

64 22

6.3.3.2 Installation Design

Plan

The appendix B documents that are called out have very little to do executing the MSC TRANSALT documentation and engineering review processes.

1.What specific drawings are required? (foundation, Schematics, Elementary, Topside locations, etc) 2.Will the required drawings be defined by the ship class or individual ships?

3.What standard will the drawings be developed to?

4.Will the contractor need to write the TransALT and work-items for MSC?

5.Who will review these drawings and what is the required review turn-around timeframe?

6.Will the shipboard evolutions fall under ABS SVR or NVR?

7.Will ABS approval be required for each drawing package? Almost all of the other MSC work must have ABS approval but it is not mentioned in the draft RFP.

8.Does the new equipment need to be designed to and tested to MIL-STD-461 or MIL-STD-167-1? 9.What are the exact shipboard equipment requirements?

10.Will the contractor need to develop “Installation Control Drawings (ICD)” for the new shipboard equipment?

P

1. At a minimum, the following drawings are required: Block Wiring Diagram (BWD), List of Connections, Arrangement Modifications Drawings, Topside Arrangement Modification Drawings, and Fabrication Details. Additional drawings for Antenna Underdeck Support may be required for aluminum vessels (T-EPF/HST).

2. The required drawings will be defined by ship class vice individual ship.

3. All drawings will be developed to ABS rules for Building and Classing of Steel and High Speed Naval Craft standards.

4. The Contractor will not be required to write the T-ALT and Work Item for MSC.

5. MSC N7 Engineering Department and ABS will review the drawing with a turnaround time of 6-12 months for final approval.

7. ABS approval will be required for each drawing package.

8. The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

9. The Government accepts commercial best practices standards.

10. Yes, the contractor will need to develop ICD for the new shipboard equipment.

65 32

6.9 Information

Assurance (IA)

Several MSC vessels cannot physically support an additional rack enclosure. However, having CLASS and UNCLASS processors within the same rack enclosure does not provide the required RED/Black separation for DISA and the Navy. The new installation must meet the RMF criteria which opens up a whole list of new requirements, and, with the new equipment, a new ATO will be needed for each ship class. How does the Government intend to address the rack space versus security issues?

T The Government understands and accepts the risks associated with housing CLASS and UNCLASS systems in the same enclosure.

66 0024

6.3.8.1

Monitoring and Situational

Awareness Web Portal

Section 6.3.8.1. states: "The Portal must be accessible through public internet network and a location based Web Portal must be accessible through Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPR)."

Please explain what the Government means exactly with "location based Web Portal". What is the expected SLA / up-time of the web tool?

P The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

67 24

6.3.8.2

Monitoring and Situational

Awareness Web Portal

"The contractor shall manage user access to the web tool for both contractor and government personnel. The contractor shall administer and assign all usernames and passwords to the portal for both Contractor and Government personnel."

Will the web tool host information labeled Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)? If so, the tool will have to comply with associated security requirements in regard to hosting CUI on systems, and only password protection does not meet that level of security. Would the Government consider CAC enabled access instead?

P The Government will require multi-factor authentication to access CUI systems. The specific requirements will be clarified with the final RFP.

68 0038

11.7.5

Information Security and other miscellaneous requirements

Para 11.7.5 states: "All contractor deliverables shall be marked in accordance with DoDM 5200.1";

DoDM 5200.1 has been replaced by DoDM 5200.48. Does the Government intend to update the requirements to reflect the update DoD standard?

P The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

69 136 of 148

L4.2.2 Volume Organization

The subfactors identified in Section L do not align with the subfactors identified in Section M. For example, there are 6 identified subfactors in Section L and only 4 in Section M. Subfactor 2 in Section L is Space Segment but in Section M is Modernization. Please update the RFP to clearly identify what subfactors will be evaluated and in what order they should be represented within the offeror's proposal response IAW Section L.

C The Government has updated and will provide clarifications to the documents Section L and M

70 145 of 148

M2.2. Technical / Management

Factor.

The subfactors identified in Section M do not align to the subfactors identified in Section L. Section M states only 4 subfactors are being evaluated vs. 6 identified in Section L. Plus, the numbering of the subfactors do not align.

Please make the necessary adjustments to ensure the evaluated subfactors are clearly identified and aligned with the required location with the proposal response as dicated in Section L.

C The Government has updated and will provide clarifications to the documents Section L and M

71 24 of 148

PWS 6.3.8.1

SIPR Connectivity. Does an offeror need to have SIPR connectivity prior to contract award or will the offeror be afforded the necessary time to establish SIPR connectivity post award? For example, if an offeror currently possesses SCIF infrastructure which is SIPR-ready but requires an operational sponsor, will this be considered acceptable to meet this PWS requirement?

P The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

72 Terminal Info Tab

Attachment 6 Appendix A Technical

Specifications

The Technical Specification identifies the Kymeta U7 as Terminal #4, but does not identify any quanitity of terminals to be procured. Is it the customers intent to order Kymeta terminals during the FO period of performance during modernization, and if so, would the number of terminals to be acquired equal the total MSC platforms in the current network?

T This is based on the modernization schedule as proposed by Industry. However, is specified by capability and maximizing upgrade potential based on capabilities proposed. This is based on the capability proposed.

73 137 of 148

L5.2.1 Specific Content (SB Objectives)

Point #2 states the offeror should use $515M TAV in estimating our SB participation assessments. Does this represent the Governments view of a "Ceiling Price" for the MSC NGW FO solicitation? If not, what is the origin of this estimate for TAV?

C The Government is reviewing all SB feedback and will provide clarification back to the RFP so these expectations are clear.

74 140 of 148

L7.0 Volume V – Pricing Volume

Should Volume V be labelled "Contracts Volume" given the nature of what is required within? C Thank you. The Governmentt has updated.

Attachment 13

CIAQ

References: The CNSSP-12 reference is incorrect, states the November 2012 (NATIONAL INFORMATION

ASSURANCE POLICY FOR SPACE SYSTEMS USED TO SUPPORT NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS)

version. There is a more updated version focused on Cybersecurity language, dated February 2018

(CYBERSECURITY POLICY FOR SPACE SYSTEMS USED TO SUPPORT NATIONAL SECURITY

MISSIONS). Recommend updating the CIAQ to represent the most up to date version.

T The Government has updated the CIAQ to reflect the correct reference

Attachment 2

DD254

The solicitation number on the DD254 (HC101320R0002 Comsatcom Bandwidth Monitoring And Utilization) is different than the number used in the DRFP (HC101320R0014). And the description seems like it's for the CSSC II program, not MSC NGW FO. Please address mismatch prior to final RFP submission.

C The Government will review and attach the revised DD254 to the RFP.

Attachment 6 Technical

Specifications

Terminal Info' Tab

Appendix A - Attachment 6

The 'Terminal Info' tab of Attachment 3 lists three terminal types. The Terminal Identifier for the terminals in row 4 of the spreadsheet label the terminals as Terminal 1, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3. The header for the columns for the terminals in row 2 lists Terminal 1, Terminal 2 and Terminal 4. Is there a fourth terminal to consider for the requirements?

T The Government has update the Technical Specification to accurately reflect Terminal numbering.

Attachment 6 Technical

Specifications

Terminal Info' Tab

Appendix A - Attachment 6

Terminal ID 3 does not list the number of terminals for the Kymeta terminal. Are there current Kymeta terminals in use? Or is the Kymeta terminals planned for future use?

T The Government currently has six Kymeta terminals but is in the process of procuring twenty.

Attachment 6 Technical

Specifications

Eb_No Values' Tab

Appendix A - Attachment 6

It is listed in the 'Eb_No Values' Tab that the 'vendors shall use a software revision compatible with the current X5 modems." The iDirect X5 modem is end-of-sale. Can the X5 modems be replaced with current generation iDirect modems, like the X7?

T

It is the Governement's intent to move to the modernization solution. However, the Government recognizes that there will be a need to replace iDirect X5 modems during the sustainment phase due to equipment failure, etc. The Government will accept iDireect X7 or newer provided they are compatible with existing networks and systems.

Attachment 3 Technical

Specifications Sample Routes

Attachment 3 Attachment 3 appears to contain the same information as Attachmnet 6, Appendix A. It does not contain any information on sample routes. Will the government please update Attachment 3 to list any required sample routes?

T Thank you for this feedback, this will be corrected back to the PWS.

RFP Document Pg

Section 6.1.3.2.1 CFE is defined as Customer Furnished Equipment in this section. Should this be Contractor Furnished Equipment? C Thank you for this feedback, this will be corrected back to the PWS.

RFP Document Pg

Section 6.2.1.1.5 Appendix A - Attachment 6

It is assumed that the MSOC are fixed terrestrial sites? Is this assumption correct? The terminal types listed in Appendix A do not list a fixed VSAT terminal. Will the MSOCs use one of the list mobile terminals detailed in Appendix A? If not, can the customer provide the VSAT terminal type and specifications for the MSOC locations?

T The Government has update the Technical Specification to accurately reflect Terminal numbering and information.

RFP Document Pg

Section 6.2.1.1.6 Appendix A - Attachment 6

Is the Carry On Satellite Communications terminal the Kymeta terminals referenced in Appendix A? If not, can the customer provide the terminal typs and specifications for the Carry On terminals?

T

The Government has update the Technical Specification to accurately reflect Terminal numbering and information. The Ashore and Afloat Carry On SATCOM capability described in PWS 6.2.2.3.2 is part of the offeror's proposed solution and therefore is not listed in Appendix A, Technical Specification.

RFP Document Pg 19 of 148 and Pg 21 of 148

Section 6.2.2.1 and Section

6.2.2.4

Satellite operators maintain stringent security mechanisms and protocols for their TT&C networks that control their satellite's postioning and payloads. These security mechanisms meet or exceed government requirements in order to provision government service on their satellites. Is the intent of these sections to state the the government wants an optional TRANSEC offering for the COMSATCOM service that the MSC will use for transport to establish the end-to-end services? If yes, is FIPS 140-2 a requirement?

T The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

RFP Document Pg

Section 6.1.2.1

In PWS section 6.1.2.1, the coordinates listed for Primary 8 indicate a significantly larger area than is graphically depicted. Would the Government please confirm which is accurate?

T The coordinates listed in Table 1 is the most accurate information. The graphic is provided for visual reference only.

RFP Document Pg

Section 6.1.2.2

In PWS section 6.1.2.2, the coordinates for Transit 2 include all of the coordinates for Transit 3. Would the Government please confirm that this is an error?

T The coordinates have been updated with the final RFP.

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Technical Specification Sample Routes and Attachment 6 - Appendix A Technical Specifications seem to be the same document.

T The Government will review and provide updated attachments to the RFP.

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Technical Specification Sample Routes does not state which terminal corresponds to the transit routes. Can Government clarify the terminals used for each Primary and Transit region?

T The Government will review and provide updated attachments to the RFP.

89 19

Section C, 6.2.1.1.5

Can Government clarify which terminal is used to support the MSOCs? T The Government has update the Technical Specification to accurately reflect Terminal numbering and information.

90 19 Section C, 6.2.2.1

Can Government clarify if TRANSEC, if requested, would be required for the global coverage requirement (currently L-band)?

T TRANSEC is a requirement for the modernization global coverage requirement. The specific requirements for TRANSEC will be clarified with the Final RFP.

91 19

Section C, 6.2.2.1 Can Government provide the data requirements for the X-band service? It is understood that the current primary service is Ku-band, the secondary service is L-band but there is no clarification as to why X-band is required, given that the modernized service has no band restrictions.

T MSC NGW operates as a separate network enclave from Navy CBSP. The X-Band antennas must be integrated with the shipboard NGW communications systems. X-band SATCOM service to the additional antenna will not be required through this contract.

92 15

Section C, 6.1.3.2.1.1

Space Segment lists all satellites links must provide a Link Availability of 99.7% for FDMA and 99.5% for TDMA links. Is this a requirement for L-Band links used in secondary / back-up satellite connectivity? Typical L-Band shared connectivity does not reach the government required TDMA 99.5% availability.

T The Government will clarify this requirement with the Final RFP.

93 20

Section C, 6.2.2.1.1

If one antenna can accommodate primary and secondary services, would it be acceptable for an antenna to have a size and weight equal to a combination of antenna sizes?

T Terminals that are multi-band capable are acceptable, but to ensure redundancy multiple antennas are still required. The size and weight limitations are stated in PWS 6.2.2.1.1.

Regardless of capability, no antenna can exceed those limitations.

94 20

Section C, 6.2.2.3.1

Can Government clarify the request for 4/2 Mbps? Does that refer to all services (primary, secondary, global coverage) or a subset?

T The Government's requirement is 4/2 Mbps for the primary service. The Government does not expect the secondary service to be as robust as the primary service.

95 12 Section C, 6.1.2.1

Please confirm the coordinates for the Primary Region of Operation 8. The coordinates provided in table do not match the adjacent Google Earth Image.

T The coordinates have been updated with the final RFP.

96 13 Section C, 6.1.2.2

Coordinates for Transit Region 2 also include the coordinates for Transit 4 at the end. Please remove these coordinates in Transit 2's table.

T The coordinates have been updated with the final RFP.

97 13-14 Section C, 6.1.2.2

Please confirm the coordinates for the Transit Regions 3. The coordinates provided in table do not match the adjacent Google Earth Image.

T The coordinates have been updated with the final RFP.

98 134 Section L, 2.2.1 Can Government allow page count exemptions for coverage maps? C The Government will review and provide updates to the page counts within the RFP.

Schedule B Fleet Broadband

Subscription Services

The increment of this CLIN at 150 Kbps is not a product offered by the provider (parent company of the incumbent contractor) of this service nor is the unlimited service. No other competitor can offer a product that the incumbent will not sell, thus making inclusion of this CLIN anti-competitive. Please clarify the bandwidth required and type of service for this CLIN.

C The Government will verify and clarify the requirment and update with the final RFP.

Schedule B Fleet Broadband

Subscription Services

Only the incumbent has knowledge of historical usage of their Fleet Broadband subscription service, this promotes an anti-competitieve environment and drastically favors the incumbent contractor. This CLIN calls for 150 Kbps of service, which is not an increment of service offerred by the incumbent. Please provide estimate bandiwdth conumption/usage data for this CLIN? Alternaitvely, we recommend a plug number for usage to promote fair competition.

C The Government will provide a consumption number in Section B for the purposes of evaluation.

Attachment 1 - Section B Pricing

Worksheet

The Pricing Worksheet specifies regional CT and Terrestrial Backhaul requirements. Bidder’s solutions may not require dedicated CTs and Terrestrial Backhaul in each of the specified regions (e.g., a CONUS-based CT may serve both W. Atlantic and Caribbean remotes). Should bidders aggregate their services IAW their technical solutions, thus potentially leaving some Pricing Sheet CLINs without cost, or should they proportionately allocate their aggregate costs across the specified CLINs so that all specified CLINs have associated costs on the Pricing Worksheet?

C

Yes, bidders should propose in line with the Schedule B Price Sheet and aggregate their services in accordance to their technical solutions. Where some CLIN lines are listed as not seperately priced CLIN lines, the narrative/technical solutions should clarify so that their are no assumptions made or clarifications needed regarding the pricing structure.

Is there a maximum weight, (terminal only or full cased weight) for the Carry On Satcom Terminal and should it be airline checkable?

T The Government will verify and clarify the requirment and update with the final RFP.

Should the Carry On Satcom Terminal have the ability to be manually configured to exclude visible satellites below a desired elevation or be locked to a single satellite?

T The Government expects the vendor to provide configuration support to all terminals supporting MSC. With a managed service, the Government does not expect terminals to be locked to a single satellite.

Does the Carry On Satcom Terminal need to have the ability to be tilted without the use of a separate tripod and to have universal mounting on all deck types?

T The Carry on SATCOM terminal will be utilized in a variety of environments and on a variety of different ships. Terminals with increased capability and mounting options would be preferred.

Does the Carry On Satcom Terminal require POE? T The Government does not require POE, but the Government will accept POE.

What number of remotes could be…