Industry_Comment-Government_Response_CRM_-_Amendment_001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES) -- Award Notice Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
Industry Comment-Government Response CRM - Amendment 001
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Amendment 001
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY FINAL RFP COMMENTS | ||||||
| Comment No. | Document | Reference | Industry Comment | Industry Recommendation | Government Response (Accept / Reject / Modify) | |
| 1 | Section L | 4.3 Section 3.d | ||||
| Page 29 of 48 | Section d) RFP asks for BOEs by Government provided WBS at least to Level 4 as provided in the model contract (Attachment 3), however many of the Government WBS elements are only to Level 3 such as 1.1.1 System Engineering. | Recommend that Section d) text be modified to read: "Contractor shall provide BOEs to at least Level 4 only where Level 4 elements are identified in the Government-provided WBS (Attachment 3), and the six SOW Sections as called out in Section L. 4.3 c. Section 3 d)." Justification: Clarifies Government instructions to Offerors in line with Government provided WBS (Attachment 3), and reduces cost evaluation burden on Government. | M; language modified for clarity. Level 4 BOEs only required where level 4 elements are identified in the WBS (Attachment 3) and the six SOW sections identified in Section L, para. 4.3.c. Section 3 d) (page 29). | |||
| 2 | Section L | 3.2 Section 3.1.e, | ||||
| Page 11 of 48 | In reference to "Text inside graphics, matrices, spreadsheets, focus boxes, and tables shall use single-line spacing and shall be no less than 8-point Times New Roman font." | Recommend that the following change be made "Text inside graphics, matrices, spreadsheets, focus boxes, and tables shall use single-line spacing and shall be no less than 8-point Arial font." Justification: Arial is easier for evaluator to read in tables and graphics than Times New Roman. | R; offeror shall use 8-point Times New Roman font inside graphics, matrices, spreadsheets, focus boxes, and tables. | |||
| 3 | Attachment 1 - Statement of Work | Paragraph 1.1.1.14.b, | ||||
| Att 1-33-161 | Need access to "Air Force Cross Domain Support Element (AF CDSE) Users Guide for AF & Combatant | |||||
| Commanders (COCOM) supported customers," Version 2.0, 30 June 2016. | Provide "Air Force Cross Domain Support Element (AF CDSE) Users Guide for AF & Combatant | |||||
| Commanders (COCOM)" document in Bidder's Library | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |||||
| 4 | Section L | Section 5.e.iv, | ||||
| Page 40 of 48 | RFP states "The proposed IMP shall include narratives for all of the processes in the PTES System Engineering Plan……". Previous Government response indicated that a SEP would be included in the bidders library. | Please provide PTES SEP in the bidder's library. | ||||
| A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | ||||||
| 5 | Joint Hub TRD | |||||
| Joint Hub ECU TRD | Section 3.1 in both TRDs identify States and Modes | The Joint Hub ECU TRD Section 3.1 lists the States and Modes. These are different than the States and Modes in the Joint Hub TRD Section 3.1. | We are assuming that the States/Modes in the Joint Hub TRD are the correct ones. Please clarify in final TRDs | A; document updated for correnct modes and provided in Bidder's Library. | ||
| 6 | Joint Hub ECU TRD | HUBE00600 | In the Joint Hub ECU TRD, there is a note after HUBE00600 that references MIL-STD-461 (RE102-4). It is not clear how this notes related to the frequency reference. It seems that the note was cut and paste from another document and does not belong in the Joint Hub ECU TRD. | Please clarify | R; High level of time accuracy is required for the Joint Hub ECU. | |
| 7 | Joint Hub TRD |
Joint Hub ECU TRD Joint Hub to SATCOM ICD Joint Hub ECU TRD (Table 3-2), Joint Hub TRD (Table 3-4),
| Joint Hub to SATCOM ICD (Table 5) | The Joint Hub ECU TRD (Table 3-2) and the Joint Hub TRD (Table 3-4) define the low signal level as 0.0 to 2.5 Volts. The Joint Hub to SATCOM ICD (Table 5) defined the same signal low voltage as 0.0 to 0.5 Volts. | We are assuming that the ICD is correct. Please clarify. | M; Joint Hub TRD and Joint Hub-SATCOM GWY ICD correct as written. Joint Hub ECU TRD updated to reference correct levels for low voltage. |
| 8 | Section L | Section 5.j.ii, | |
| Page 44 of 48 | Section states "At a minimum, the plan shall address all items identified in the most current version of the SMC's OCI Mitigation Plan Cheklist provided as an attachment to this solicitation." This attachment appears to be missing from the final solicitation. | Please provide SMC's OCI Mitigation Plan Cheklist in final RFP. | |
| A; SMC OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist provided as Appendix E to the solicitation. | |||
| 9 | Section L and PTES Model Contract | Section L: |
4.2 d. Paragraph d(iv), PTES Model Contract:
| FOC CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT (Page 5 of 38), JOINT HUB PROCUREMENT (FOC Capability) (Page 6 of 38) and JOINT HUB INSTALLATION AND DEPLOYMENT (FOC CAPABIL (Page 7 of 38) | Section L States that FOC is NLT Q1FY2026 (which has an end date of Dec. 31, 2025), however PTES Model Contract has an end date of 31 December 2026 for CLINs 0003, 0004, 0005, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0011 and 0012. | Make the date in Section L correspond to the dates within the PTES model contract | A; PTES Model Contract CLINs 0003, 0004, 0005, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0011, 0012 PoPs updated to reflect 31 December 2025 end date. | |||
| 10 | Attachment 1 - Statement of Work | Paragraph 1.1.1.14.h, | ||||
| Att 1-33-161 | Reference to the PTES Program Office approved product list but list not provided in Bidder's Library | Provide PTES Program Office approved product list in Bidder's Library | R; Per CDRLs A117, B117, and C117, the Contractor is required to submit a Hardware/Software list. Once the HW/SW list is approved, it becomes the PTES PO approved list. | |||
| 11 | Attachment 1 - Statement of Work | Paragraph 1.1.1.14.h, | ||||
| Att 1-33-161 | Reference to the NSA approved product list for static and dynamic code analyzers but list not provided in Bidder's Library | Provide NSA approved product list for static and dynamic code analyzers in Bidder's Library | R; Per CDRL A021, B021, and C021, the Contractor is required to submit the code analyzer to NSA for review. Once approved, it becomes the NSA-approved tool. | |||
| 12 | Section L | Paragraph 1.0.h, | ||||
| and Paragraph | Paragraph 1.0h states: "...the Offeror shall immediately, notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale, as well as, the remedies the Offeror is asking the Contracting Officer to consider. Such notices shall be received no later than ten (10) calendar days following release of the solicitation." | |||||
| Paragraph 2.0a states: "Questions regarding the solicitation must be in writing and emailed to the PCO (with a courtesy copy) no later than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the close of the solicitation due date." | Recommend that the guidance in Paragraph 2.0a be given precedence over the guidance in Paragraph 1.0h. Justification: Provides Government with longer period to receieve and correct errors or inconsistencies in the solicitation. | R; There are separate purposes for each deadline. The first (ten (10) calendar days following the release of the solicitation) serves to cut off changes to the RFP documents due to errors/inconsistencies which could lead to the cancellation of the solicitation. In addition, this allows all offerors sufficient time to build their proposals based on static documents. The second (fifteen (15) days prior to the close of the solicitation due date) serves to cut off clarification questions based on the RFP documents. Industry may submit all questions up until fifteen (15) days prior to the solicitation close date. The Government reserves the right to not answer all questions. | ||||
| 13 | PTES Model Contract SF33 | Section B - CLIN 0003 POP 1/2/23 - 12/30/26, Page 5 | RFP specifies Build 0 for 6 months and Software Builds at 9 months each. That puts completion of build 4 at ~42.5 months after ATP. Build 5 cannot start until CLIN 3 ATP in Jan. 2023, which is ~5.5 months after end of build 4, causing a break in the build schedule. Government notional schedules show CLIN 5 starting immediately following completion of 9-month long build 4. Notional schedules are not executable given dates in Section B. | Add 3 months to Build 0 and extend Build 4 to 11 months extending to Build 5 start of 1/2/23 (start of CLIN 0003) | A; see changes to CLIN PoPs in PTES Model Contract (SF33) - Rev 1. | |
| 14 | Section L | Section 5.0.i).i. Attachment 8: Small Business Subcontracting Plan, | ||||
| Page 42 of 48 | “Other than Small Business (OTSB) Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 including information required in paragraphs (d) (1) through (d) (11) of that clause.” | The Model Contract reflects the updated version of FAR 52.219-08 (NOV 2016) & -09 (JAN 2017), which adds paragraphs (d) (12) through (d) 15 of the clause. Please clarfiy if the Government is requesting that we only include paragraphs (d) 1 through (d) (11) of FAR 52.219-08 (NOV 2016) & -09 (JAN 2017) or was the intention to include all elements in paragraphs (d) (1) through (d) (15) of these new clause versions. | A; Section L updated to read, "Other than Small Business (STSB) Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 including information required in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(15) of that clause." | |||
| 15 | Section L | Section 3.0, Table 2, Page Limit (Max) column, Vol V, Attachment 8: Small Business Subcontracting Plan, | ||||
| Page 9 of 48 | Industry standard is no Page limit on Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The PTES Small Business Subcontracting Plan Page limitation (max) states 10 Pages. | Recommend removing Page limit on Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Alternatively, increase to 15 Pages at a minimums in order to incorporate all 15 elements in accordance with FAR 52.219-08 (NOV 2016) & -09 (JAN 2017). | M; the Small Business Subcontracting Plan page limit has been increased to a maximum of 12 pages to allow for the added requirements at paragraphs (d)(12) through (d)(15) of FAR 52.219-9. | |||
| 16 | Section L | Section 4.5.b.a), | ||||
| Page 37 of 48 | Under Volume V, TAB A, the language states “the “original” copy shall be clearly marked and provided under a separate cover. The Offeror shall complete the fill-in throughout Sections A-K.”. But it appears that Volume A, TABs A through E provides the completed Model Contract. | Please clarify if it the Government's intention for contractors to submit a Volume V with the stated TABs and a separate “clean” marked-up copy of the model contract in addition to the volume. | M; The intent of this requirement is to have the Offeror clearly identify the original copy of the SF 33 which contains the 'wet' signature of the individual authorized to obligate the Offeror. The completed Model contract should be provided in TABs A-E as specified by Section L, paragraph 4.5.b. The Offeror is only required to submit two (2) copies of the Model Contract as specified at Section L, Table 2. |
Language added to Section L, paragraph 4.5.b.a) for clarity.
| 17 | Section L | Section 4.5.b.a), Page 37 of 48 & Section 6.0.b.i, Page 45 of 48 | Under Volume V, TAB A, the Customer requests for the contracts POCs for proposal decisions, contract obligation and negotiations. This information is also requested under Appendix B, Section 1. | Recommend the removal of the point of contact requirement under TAB A of Volume V since the information will be provided under Appendix B. | A; Point of contact requirement removed at Section 4.5.b.a) of Section L. | |
| 18 | Section L | Section 5.0.b.l) & m), Page 44 of 48 | Under Section 5.0 Attachments, there is no direction or requirement to complete or fill-in any information for Attachment 11 and Attachment 12. | Please confirm that the Government direction is to submit Attachment 11 and 12 as released with the final RFPage | A; Offerors are not required to complete or fill-in any portion of Attachment 11 or Attachment 12. | |
| 19 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES) Capability Development Document (CDD) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 20 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Compliance Documents List | PTES-8390 PTES Mission Management System (MMS) to DISA Core Data Center (CDC) ICD | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | R; ICD to be developed by the contractor post-ATP. | |
| 21 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Compliance Documents List | PTES-8490 PTES Key Management System (KMS) to DISA Core Data Center (CDC) ICD | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | R; ICD to be developed by the contractor post-ATP. | |
| 22 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Compliance Documents List | Protected Tactical Waveform/Protected Tactical Service (PTW/PTS) Security Classification/Declassification Guide (SCG) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, a version dated 15 Mar 16 was provided with the Sources Sought RFI, is this still the current version? If not, please provide. | A; document provided in Bidder's Library as PATS (PTW/PTS) SCG. | |
| 23 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Compliance Documents List | PTES-8050 PTES Program Protection Plan (PPP) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 24 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Compliance Documents List | PTES-8080 PTES System Safety Management Plan (SSMP) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 25 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | DISA Service Request Form (SRF) - PTES Operational Environment | This current document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, the Version FY17.0 – Jul 2016 version is available, is this still the current version? If not, please provide. | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 26 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | National Security Agency (NSA) Technical Security Requirements Document (TSRD) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; draft document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 27 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | PTES-8030 PTES Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 28 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | PTES-8960 PTES Risk and Issues Management Plan (RIMP) | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 29 | Attachment 2 Compliance and Reference Documents | PTES Reference Documents List | SI 714-4 Consolidated Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Management Policies | This document does not appear to be in the bidder's library, please provide | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 30 | SOW | 1.1.2.5.b and 1.1.2.5.b.2 | ||||
| Att 1-40 of 161 | The final RFP updated the definition of the 5 ground strings require to be provided in addition to the operational assets. |
SOW 1.1.2.5.b states “The PTES Contractor shall procure (in addition to the operational assets), deliver and install five (5) ground strings at locations as defined by the PTES Program Office.”
SOW 1.1.2.5.b.2 states “The PTES Contractor shall install and maintain all other ground strings and components that are not installed at a DISA CDC or an over the air test site, at the Contractor’s Facility unless otherwise directed by the PTES Program Manager.” Is it the Government's intent that all 5 MMSs, KMSs, and KMS ECUs of the 5 ground strings (and any required simulators/emulators) will be installed at a DISA CDC and the 5 JointHubs (w/ ECUs) and KLIFs of the 5 ground strings (and any required support equipment) will be installed at the over the air test sites or the Contractor’s Facility? The first SOW statement implies that a full string (MMS, KMS, KLIF, and JointHub) may be required to be installed at a location other than the DISA CDC or over the air test site. R; See the referenced language at:
CLIN 0002, Paragraph 1.1.2.6 – “Development of Test Equipment” covers Ground String scope in CLIN 0002 by way of reference to CLIN 0001, Paragraph 1.1.2.5
CLIN 0001, Paragraph 1.1.2.5 outlines the Contractor’s requirement to design, procure, build, test, certify, install, and maintain a minimum of five (5) Ground Strings in support of system-level testing, operator training, and maintenance material testing.
| 31 | SITP | 7.5 (U) Tools and Test Beds: | SITP states in 7.5 (U) Tools and Test Beds: (U) PTES portions of the Ground String (highlighted rows of Table 7-2) are to be the operational equivalent system. | If more than 1 MMS and KMS of the 5 ground strings will be installed in the CDC can all strings be in a single RMF Cybersecurity asset and share common infrastructure and cybersecurity services (i.e. common virtual/container environment, common auditing services) with independent MMS and KMS mission capabilities or do each of the 5 ground strings at the CDC need to be 100% independent? | R; Contractor to engineer design/solution to enable functional independent MMS/KMS capabilities/missions for various ITDT and ops sustainment support purposes. |
| 32 | PTES-8000-Rev_A_System_TRD_2018.03.09 | SYS02584 | (U) PTES shall provide the authorized portal user an interface to define the profiles for all web portal users. | In the MMS TRD, role-based access controls are specified, not per-user profiles (see MMS02010). Are role-based controls adequate to satisfy the System profiles? | R; This requirement is not the same as the role based access control requirement. |
Intent of this requirement is to allow individual users, even when those users have the same role and privileges, to customize their own profiles in MMS to enable them to work efficiently. Profiles may include, but not limited to, the layout of the screens, functions/tools on their screens, color, background, etc
| 33 | PTES-8000-Rev_A_System_TRD_2018.03.09 | SYS04015 | (U) PTES shall allow the authorized portal user to add, delete, and edit any data in its database without the need for software update or release | Arbitrary changes to a database can corrupt application state. What does "its" in the requirement text refer to? Does this mean a portal user can update any data their role and organization maintains, such as asset records? | R; Intent of this requirement is to allow users to make changes to the values in the database, not the structure of the database. |
| 34 | PTES-8000-Rev_A_System_TRD_2018.03.09 | SYS04030 | (U) PTES shall notify and make visible the updates to resources and data being viewed and utilized by the authorized portal users within 10 seconds. | This requirement is not limited to a role or function, and has no corresponding equivalent in the MMS TRD. Was this intended for mission planning? If this constraint applies to COTS S/W such as Network Management or Trouble Tickets, there are already mechanisms to coordinate updates to data being used. | R; Primarily intended for mission planning. Multiple simultaneous MMS users may be conducting mission planning with the same SATCOM resources. One MMS user may, at any time, complete the mission planning processing by reserving SATCOM resources that other MMS users assumed was available. Other MMS users need to know as soon as possible that those SATCOM resources are not available anymore. |
| 35 | PTES-8000-Rev_A_System_TRD_2018.03.09 | SYS05195 | (U) PTES shall provide collaboration services to enable authorized portal users to collaborate real time. |
(U) Note 1: Collaboration services include real time messaging, real time screen sharing,
| presence, scheduling, calendaring, etc. | The MMS TRD only requires operator messaging (in MMS08905). A calendar function is mentioned in the text of MMS TRD section 1.2.1.3, but is not a requirement. Any screen sharing or presence would be limited to the web portal, not other workstation applications. Are all these functions required in the MMS web portals? | R; Intent of this requirement is for multiple MMS portal users to collaborate MMS and KMS applications, not other workstation applications. | |||
| 36 | PTES-8300-Rev_A_MMS_TRD_2018.03.09 | MMS08160 | (U) The PTES MMS shall allow the portal users to access and manage the trouble tickets associated with their organization/account via the NM and POM portals. | The text in MMS TRD section 3.2.9 was updated to say "(U) Trouble tickets that are submitted via the unclassified portal can be modified, updated, and | |
| tracked on the classified portal.". But this statement conflicts with the text of the requirement. We want to prevent the same ticket from being updated differently in each portal's security domain. | R; If the ktr sees a contradiction, the guidance would be that the requirement takes precedence over the note text. |
The Govt does not believe these as contradictory. The requirements doesn’t mention security domains, just associated users. The same user could enter the system from different domains using the appropriate credentials for that domain. Ktrs can propose a design that prevents the same ticket from being updated differently in each portal's security domain, however.
37 PTES Model Contract SF33 CLIN0004 System TRD:
[SYS01153] (U) PTES shall support at least one HTG at IOC.
[SYS01169] (U) PTES shall support 16 HTGs at FOC.
[SYS01149] (U) PTES shall provide HTG operations with 16 Primary Joint Hubs at a minimum of 13 different SATCOM Gateway sites providing worldwide coverage via up to 10 WGS satellites at FOC.
[SYS01156] (U) PTES shall provide HTG operations with 16 Secondary Joint Hubs at a minimum of 13 different SATCOM Gateway sites providing coverage worldwide by FOC.
Model Contract CLIN0004
| Number of Units Required: 24 | The number of Units Required in the Model Contract CLIN0004 Joint Hub Procurement (FOC Capability) does not appear to be consistent with the Joint Hub quantities in the System TRD requirements. System TRD requires 16 primary and 16 secondary Joint Hubs for a total of 32 at FOC. One HTG, containing 1 primary and 1 secondary joint hub at IOC. That would breakdown as 2 Joint Hubs for IOC and 30 additional for FOC. This appears to be inconsistent with the Model Contract Number of Units Required. Please clarify. | R; The number referenced in the Model Contract (24) is the threshold number required to meet FOC requirements. For proposal purposes, Offerors shall propose to meet this threshold requirement. | ||||
| 38 | PTES-8000-Rev_A_System_TRD_2018.03.09 | SYS01890 | Not clear if the requirement is fully allocated to the Joint Hub. | What is the definition of “configurable utilization level” in Objective requirement [SYS01890] referring to: an individual PPPoE user session, or Joint Hub capacity? And what is being “configured”? More specifically, is the Objective requirement [SYS01890] fully implemented by the Joint Hub threshold requirements [HUB01185] (Extensions for Credit Flow) and [HUB01145] (PPPoE Quantization levels)? | R; Yes, the requirement [SYS01890] (configurable PPPoE utilization level) is entirely allocated to the Hub and is implemented by [HUB01150] (PPPoE quantization levels) - Not [HUB01145] as in the comment. |
The more coarse the quantization levels are, the more stable the link rate provided to PPPoE, and the more quickly PPPoE flow can ramp up (due to the more headroom). However, these benefits come at the expense of less efficient resource utilization as rates allocated toward the PPPoE flow may not get all used.
39 Section L 2.0.c Proposals are due no later than 5:00 P.M., local Los Angeles, CA time on 29 May 2018. As Monday, 28 May is Memorial Day, will the Government accept our hand-delivered proposal on Friday 25 May 2018? A; the Government will have POCs available for the delivery of proposals on 25 May 2018.
Section L modified for clarity and to allow hand carried deliveries.
| 40 | Section L | 5.0.b.e.iv | The Proposed IMP shall include narratives for all of the processes in the PTES System Engineering Plan that have roles or activities identified for the PTES developer. The IMP shall describe the Offeror’s approach to compliance for processes, including processes governed by the tailored compliance documents and processes governed by corporate command media or corporate process. | Would the Government please post the PTES SEP for Industry review in order to address the Section L requirement? | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. |
| 41 | MMS_to_JIST_ICD | 3.1.3.5, 3.1.4.7 | Embedded SAR and SAA excel documents from previous versions no longer appear to be attached in the latest version. Please provide embedded files as separate downloads in the bidder's library. | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 42 | MMS_to_JointHub_ICD, MMS_to_Contigency_Hub_ICD | Table 14, Appendix A, Appendix B | Embedded files in Table 14, Appendix A, and Appendix B from the previous versions no longer appear to be attached to the latest version of the documents. Please provide embedded files as separate downloads in the bidder's library. | A; document provided in Bidder's Library. | |
| 43 | Section L | 3.1 d | Page size (for text sections of the proposal) shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12-point Times New Roman font printed in black ink on white paper; black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. | Please confirm that the model contract and attachments are exempt from this requirement and bidders should not alter the existing font of the documents to meet the standard. | A; Per Section L paragraph 3.1.d., reproduced sections of the solicitation document are not required to conform to the 12-point Times New Roman font restriction. |
| 44 | Section L | 4.3.c | Table 5 - Cost/Price Methodology - Contract Types do not match the Model Contract Section B (e.g., CLIN0001-0003 are CPIF/AF in Table 5 and CPIF only in the model contract). Table 7 in Section L does match Model Contract | Please confirm which document has the correct Contract Types. Model Contract (section B) or Section L - Table 5 or Section L Table 7. | A; CLINs 0001-0003 are CPIF CLINs with AF elements. Per the PTES Model Contract, the Data Description for each CLIN addresses the Perfomance and Award Fee. These CLINs are labeled CPIF/AF in Table 5 of Section L to indicate the CPIF CLINs which have an associated AF element. |
| 45 | SOW | 1.1.2.5 | CLIN 0001 calls the section Design and Development of Test Equipment and talks about the 5 ground strings. CLIN 0002 does not discuss the 5 ground strings. CLIN 0003 only mentions Government Acceptance of 5 ground strings. | Inconsistency between the CLINs. CLIN 0002 needs information about work to be done on those 5 ground strings for costing, etc. Please include SOW for the 5 ground strings in CLIN 0002 Section 1.1.2.5. | R; CLIN 0002, Paragraph 1.1.2.6 – “Development of Test Equipment” covers Ground String scope in CLIN 0002 by way of reference to CLIN 0001, Paragraph 1.1.2.5 |
CLIN 0001, Paragraph 1.1.2.5 outlines the Contractor’s requirement to design, procure, build, test, certify, install, and maintain a minimum of five (5) Ground Strings in support of system-level testing, operator training, and maintenance material testing.
| 46 | Section L | 5.0.b.h.3 | With respect to all commercial item technical data and computer software licenses listed in Table 2 of Attachment 7, licenses that comply with Attachment 7(d) to the solicitation. | The collection of all licences along will exceed 500 pages. Is it acceptable to submit copies of software licences in soft copy only? | R; the Offeror shall submit hard copies of software licences as required to comply with Section L, Table 2. |
| 47 | Section L | 4.4.a and 5.0.i.vi | 4.4 states "Small Business Participation constitutes respective portion(s) of contract effort to be performed by small business(es) at the Prime, 1st tier, and 2nd tier subcontract levels". | Please confirm that second tier subcontracts will count twards the small business participation goals, and should be included in the Attachment 8 calculations. | A; paragraph 5.0.i)vi. updated to allow for second tier subcontracts to count towards subcontracting requirements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.