SBS0026_QA_AMD04_Redacted.pdf

Question # RFP Page RFP Section/ Paragraph

CLIN/

Clause/Appendix/Att achment/Other Questions/Comments/Recommendations

Programmatic / Technical / Contractual

MSC/CSCO/

DITCO

Government Responses

MSC

SBS0026+RFP+Qand

A_Redacted, Question 72

Reference: MSC SBS0026+RFP+QandA_Redacted, Questions#72:

The Government’s response to question #72 states “The Government currently has onboard UPS systems however, vendors may propose their own UPS based on their proposed solution to meet power requirements.

MSC has UPS model numbers if needed.”

Would the Government please provide the UPS model numbers?

Technical MSC The Government UPS Model Number is:

APC Smart-UPS 3000VA

MSC

SBS0026+RFP+Qand

A_Redacted, Question 193

Attachment 15 and Attachment 6/Appendix A

Reference: MSC SBS0026+RFP+QandA_Redacted, Question#193:

Attachment 15 provides Warranty and Maintenance (W&A) information on Cobham SeaTel 4010W and Vertex RSI 1138 but not Intellian and Kymeta terminals listed in Attachment 6 (Appendix A).

Would the Government please provide W&A data for Intellian and Kymeta terminals?

Programatic CSCO The Government has provided additional information in Attachment 15.

3 23 6.5.4.3

Section 6.5.4.3 Daily Service Report provides a list of distinct items/parameters that Contractors are to provide in a daily report. While all of these item/parameters apply to the US Navy's Concept of Operations (CONOPS), many of the items do not apply to the MSC's CONOPS and can not be reported because they do not exist as discret parameters. The items that do not apply are:

• Mission Number

• Modem Assignment

• MDP Port Assignments for each mission

• Date/time contractor has activated their carrier

• Date/time end users carrier is on the air

• Date/time modem lock achieved

• Eb/No values on links

• Global Schedule of Events

• Date/time contractor has deactivated their carrier Will the Government remove these from the list of data to be included in the Daily Service Reports?

Programatic CSCO No, the Government will not remove the requirements.

0025X 0026X 0027X

The CLINs for the various Fleet Broadband (FB) Subscription Services include streaming, voice and ISDN services on one line for different speeds. Inmarsat does not sell streaming, voice and ISDN services together at the same price even if the speeds are the same. Streaming, Voice and ISDN are all sold, priced, and billed separately. Will the Government provide CLINs for each type of service with the designated speeds to allow Contractors to quote services according to how Inmarsat offers the services; i.e. FB lines item for streaming at the desired speeds, another for Voice at the desired speeds, and a third for ISDN at the desired speeds?

Programatic CSCO

The Government understands the breakdown in how FBB streaming and ancillary services are provided, the Government is requesting the offeror to provide all services under a single CLIN & Price bundle per ship/afloat system. 6.2.1.1.4 has been updated to provide further clarity.

5 11 6.2.1.1.6

Paragraph states the Carry-On Satcom terminal must support dedicated data rates of 4Mbps X 2Mbps for terminal 3 (Kymeta based carry-on for sustaining network), This data rate is more than the modernized rate called out in 6.2.2.3.4. Please clarify data rates for the sustaining carry-on Kymeta terminal. Higher rates for a smaller disadvantaged terminal over the 1m primary terminal seems an error.

Programatic CSCO The Government has updated the PWS and Attachment 1 for clarity.

Attachment 1, Instruction

(7) same comment as above, 4x2 CIR for carry on sustaining service looks incorrect Programatic CSCO The Government has updated the PWS and Attachment 1 for clarity.

7 14 6.2.2.3.4 Attachment 1, Instruction

(8)

Section 6.2.2.4.3 calls out a minimum of 2Mbps X 1Mbps for the modernized carry on terminal and Attachment one instruction (8) calls out 4Mbps X 2Mbps. Please clarify the required data rate for the modernized carry on terminal.

Programatic CSCO The Government has updated the PWS and Attachment 1 for clarity.

Attachment 1 CLINs

0101B and 101C

CLINS referenced PWS 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 respectively, should both be 6.3.3 Contractual DITCO The Government has updated the PWS references to 6.3.3.

9 11, 14

6.2.1.1.6, 6.2.2.3.4 Carry-On

Capabilities

HC101320R0014+AMD0

PWS 6.2.1.1.6 contains a requirement for "dedicated data rates of 4Mbps Downlink x 2 Mbps Uplink" for the carry-on SATCOM terminal during the sustainment period. This exceeds the data rate requirements for carry-ons provided in PWS 6.2.2.3.4 for the modernized period: "at least two Megabits per second (Mbps) forward link and one mbps return link." Will the Government revise 6.2.1.1.6 to be consistent with the data rate in 6.2.2.3.4: 2 Mbps forward x 1 Mbps return for the carry-on terminals?

Programatic CSCO The Government has updated the PWS for clarity.

Will DISA be responding to these and other additional questions which you may have received from other potential offerors?

Based on the complexity of the RFP coupled with the numerous Q&A’s received and still outstanding, it is respectfully requested that the proposal due date be extended to 2 July 2021

Contractual DITCO The Government has extended the RFP due date to July 1, 2021.

11 Attachment 3 Primary Region 9 is missing and Transit Region 3 is included, despite being removed from the PWS. Can Government provide an updated Attachment 3 so all bidders have the correct attachment?

Programatic CSCO The Government has updated Attachment 3.

12 PWS 6.2.1.1.5

In the Q&A, Government stated PWS 6.2.1.1.5 would be updated to provide the data rates for the MSOCs.

But PWS 6.2.1.1.5 points to Appendix A, which does not include the data rates for the MSOCs.

Programatic CSCO The Government has updated the PWS Section 6.2.1.1.5.

13 PWS 6.3.1

Government has indicated in PWS 6.3.1 that the Transition Plan 'shall support transition to full operational capability to meet the sustainment requirements of the MSC NGW FO system within 120 calendar days after initial task order start date.' However, as stated in PWS 6.9, contractors have up to 270 days after award to receive ATO based on successful RMF documentation. Can Government explain how they envision having the ability to award to any vendor other than the incumbent with those timeframes; considering that one aspect of the PWS gives 270 to receive ATO but another aspect of the PWS states new contractors must be able to being sustainment within 120 days?

The Government confirms that for sustainment, the current ATO will remain in place and changes to the sustainment system will be submitted against the current ATO for review. There will be sufficient time to achieve an ATO for the modernization system.

14 General

Using publicly available data, we know that the current MSC NGW contract expires in July 2021.

Government has given a due date for SBS0026 of June 23, 2021. Can Government provide any clarity on how they plan to review all proposal submissions, go through the EN/potential protest processes, and award within 30 days?

Contractual DITCO No.

15 PWS 6.5.2

In PWS 6.5.2, Government states that the PMP is to be provided with the proposal. But the Deliverables table underneath PWS 6.5.6 states the PMP is due 14 days after contract award. Can Government clarify which requirement is correct?

Contractual DITCO

Per PWS 6.5.2, the contractor shall provide a draft copy of the PMP as part of their proposal. The Government will provide the contractor with feedback on the draft PMP included within their proposal within 7 days after contract award. The contractor shall update and present the final PMP within 14 calendar days after initial task order start date at the Kick-Off Meeting.

MSC

SBS0026_QandA_A

MD03_Redacted, Question 9 & 10

MSC SBS0026_QandA_AMD03_Redacted, Question 9 & 10 The provided answer states “PWS Section 6.2.2.1.1 has been updated for clarity”. However, review of PWS

6.2.2.1.1 does not provide clarity to these questions.

The Government has provided different weight limits for small, medium and large ships. To maximize network efficiency, we may offer different terminals for the weight classes. In this case, a terminal that meets the 615 pound weight limits of a large ship may not meet the 285 pound weight limit of a small ship. These different ships may require different terminals, and will also require separate installation labor hours, procurement costs, procurement schedule, etc.

In support of this, we are requesting the total number of ships for each weight class.

Of the 105 Afloat antennas required, how many are of each variety? For example, small = 25 antenna, medium = 25 antennas, large = 55 antennas.

Programatic CSCO

PWS 6.2.2.1.1 states, "The Contractor shall be allowed to place any antenna configuration on any class as long as it does not exceed weight requirements and meets the throughput and service requirements for all ships."

17 Amendment 3 Amendment 3

QA Clarification regarding Volume II

Technical and Attachments

Could the Government please confirm the following page count and content is correct for Volume II Technical Management and its four (4) attachments?

1. Volume II Technical Management – 50 pages

- Subfactor 1 - PWS 6.1.4.

- Subfactor 2 - PWS 6.2.2.

- Subfactor 3 - PWS 6.3.1., 6.5.2. 6.1.2., 6.2.1., and 6.1.4.2.1.

- Subfactor 4 - PWS 6.5.2.

2. Transition Support Plan – 10 pages (outside of the technical proposal page limitation)

- PWS 6.3.1.

3. Project Management Plan – 25 pages (outside of the technical proposal page limitation)

- PWS 6.5.2.

- “Clearly outline an overview of infrastructure sizing and ability to scale based on customer demand, NOC engineering, network services, expertise in iDirect, Asset Management, Logistics Support, Risk Management Processes.”

- “Shall include a Risk Management Plan and a Quality Control Plan.” “There is no page limit on the QCP.”

- “Shall provide an enterprise architecture (EA) overview OV-1 depiction of the vendor’s architecture and necessary EA artifacts to provide a technical view of the vendor’s architecture from end-to-end.”

4. Risk Management Plan – 10 pages (outside of the technical proposal page limitation)

- PWS 6.5.2.

5. CIAQ - MS Excel format

Contractual DITCO

1. Per RFP Section M 2.1(c), the Technical/Management portion of the proposal must be limited to 50 pages.

2. See Question #21 on RFP Q&A_Redacted. Per Section L 2.2.1, the Transition Support Plan shall be limited to 10 pages and is outside of the technical proposal page limitation.

3. See Question #23 on RFP Q&A_Redacted. Per Section L 2.2.1, the Project Management Plan shall be limited to 25 pages and is outside of the technical proposal page limitation and will be used to evaluate Technical Subfactor 3.

3a. See Question #4 on SBS0026_QandA_AMD03_Redacted. The Government has increased the PMP page count to 25 pages to account for the QCP. However, there is no page limit on the QCP.

4. Per Section L.2.2.1, the Risk Management Plan shall be limited to 10 pages and does not count towards the Technical/Management Volume page limit and will be used to evaluate Technical Subfactor 4.

5. Per Section L4.2.1.1, the CIAQ must be submitted in its original locked Microsoft Excel format via utilization of Section J Attachment

12 - CIAQ.

18 Amendment 3 Amendment 3

QA Clarification regarding Volume II

Technical and Attachments

What is the difference between the PMP Risk Management Plan and the 10-page Risk Management Plan? Contractual DITCO

The PMP Risk Management Plan is the 10-page Risk Management Plan. Per Section L.2.2.1, the Risk Management Plan shall be limited to 10 pages and does not count towards the Technical/Management Volume page limit and will be used to evaluate Technical Subfactor 4.

19 Amendment 3 Amendment 3

QA Clarification regarding Volume II

Technical and Attachments

Please confirm that the QCP is a subsidiary plan of the PMP and therefore has no page limit within the PMP’s 25 pages.

Contractual DITCO

See above Question #17, Government Response 3a. See Question #4 on SBS0026_QandA_AMD03_Redacted. The Government has increased the PMP page count to 25 pages to account for the QCP.

However, there is no page limit on the QCP.

20 6

PWS 6.1.4.1,

Teleport Service

Requirements SBS0026+RFP+QandA_

Redacted.pdf

Per the Government's response to Question #9, the traffic should be routed to the MDPs. However, in Section

6.1.4.1 there is still a reference to Public Internet. Can the Government clarify if the Public Internet is to be provided to a specific set of ships/Carry-On terminal/MSOC from the Contractor network, or Public Internet access is provided to the Ship by the Government from the MDP, more specifically, a Government-provided Public Internet access using the Contractor network as transport only.

Access shall be provided via the MDPs designated in 6.1.4.2.2.

21 7 Section 6.1.4.2.1 MSC Designated Points of Presence (MDPs)

Will the Government please provide a list of equipment and describe the MDP LAN and voice architecture(s) to which Contractor Furnished Equipment must interface inside the MDPs. Please also provide interface diagrams and/or drawings as well as Interface Control Documents (ICDs). This information will assist bidders in properly scoping the equipment needed in terms of support and transition planning. Will the Contractor be required to modernize the existing PBX at the MSC if needed?

No, the Government will not provide a list.

22 8

Section 6.1.4.2.3 Network Sizing and

6.1.4.2.5 Network

Scalability

Per PWS section 6.1.4.2.3, “The contractor shall design and deliver a scalable network to support future increased data requirements, approximately an aggregate demand of 170 end user circuits”. Per the PWS Section 6.1.4.2.5, “The contractor shall ultimately size each MDP to support approximately 170 additional modernized circuits.” Will the Government please clarify if the Contractor should size the network for 170 circuits (Section 6.1.4.2.3) or is 170 in addition to the 105 (Section 6.1.4.2.5) and therefore the total number of circuits is 275 (105+170) in the modernized.

MDPs shall support at least 105 curcuits unlesss otherwise stated, but must support approximately 170 circuits.

23 10 & 11 6.2.1.1.2 & 6.2.1.1.3 Attachment 1 - Section B

Pricing Worksheet

The instructions and referenced PWS sections instruct offerors that CLINs x001A-x024D have a minimum CIR for the service. However, the CLINs that are referenced use a "Unit" of "Mbps" (Column F). Can the Government please clarify what "Unit" the QTY will apply to? A full service which meets the CIR as outlined in the PWS or Mbps as the Unit infers? For example, will the Government order one (1) CLIN 0001A and expect the full service (CIR) despite the unit inferring that would be one (1) Mbps?

Please see instructions listed in Attachment 1.

24 11 Section 6.2.2. NGW

Modernization

Attachment 6 - Appendix A Technical

Specifications_AMD02

During modernization, will the Government please clarify or confirm if the Government is keeping the Multicast Server (MDP) and Laptop (ship) as well as STE phones at the ship and the MDP?

No, the Government cannot confirm.

25 16

6.2.1.1.6. and Attachment 1 -

Pricing Worksheet

Carry-On Satellite Communications

(SATCOM) Capabilities

PWS states "The contractor’s service must support dedicated data rates and compatible equipment described in Appendix A, Technical Specification, and not be locked to a single satellite." The data rates are not specified in Appendix A. Can the Government specify the data rates for the Kymeta u7 Carry-On Satcom terminals. Also, will the Government add a CLIN on Pricing Worksheet to price out this service.

Carry-on Data rates are identified in the PWS. No, the Government will not add CLINs.

26 17 6.2.2.1.1. Above Deck Equipment

PWS states "The contractor shall provide a small weight class tertiary X-Band antenna less than 55 pounds."

We have researched the industry, and have not found a compliant maritime terminal that is WGS certified.

Can the Government provide a list of terminals that are compliant with this requirement.

The PWS has been updated. No, the Government cannot provide a list.

27 18 6.3.1 Transition Support

In support of the sustainment period, can the Government confirm that MSC will allocate personnel onboard the ship to work on the shipboard equipment and support the transition to the new network? Or shall the contractor plan to visit all ships within the 120 days of transition period to reconfigure equipment?

The contractor shall provide a draft Transition Support Plan with their proposal. The Government will provide the contractor with feedback on the draft Transition Support Plan included within their proposal within 7 days after contract award.

28 18

6.2.2.3.2. and Attachment 1 -

Pricing Worksheet

Ashore and Afloat Carry- On SATCOM Capabilities

PWS states "The contractor shall provide approximately 65 units of small form factor, Carry-On SATCOM capability with at least two Megabits per second (Mbps) forward link and one mbps return link." Will the Government add a CLIN on Pricing Worksheet to price out this service.

No, the Government will not add CLINS.

29 32 6.9 RMF

PWS Section 6.9 indicates that the RMF process to obtain Authority To Operate (ATO) shall be completed within 270 calendar days after award. PWS Section 6.3.1 requires that transition to full operational capability to meet the sustainment requirements shall be completed within 120 calendar days after initial task order start date. Is the Government anticipating a waiver that will allow transition to the new contract prior to obtaining ATO? If no waiver, can the Government correct the PWS section 6.3.1 to state that transition of ships shall be completed within 120 days after ATO?

Technical CSCO

Please see response to Question #13. The Government confirms that for sustainment, the current ATO will remain in place and changes to the sustainment system will be submitted against the current ATO for review. There will be sufficient time to achieve an ATO for the modernization system.

30 General Q & A responses

A procuring agency must provide sufficient information in a solicitation so that offerors can compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. In order to meet this requirement, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has held that a solicitation for an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) contract must disclose the estimated quantities an agency will use to calculate the total evaluated price. Without such estimates, vendors lack information necessary for pricing their services intelligently. In addition, where estimated quantities used to evaluate IDIQ pricing are based on historical data, the failure to disclose them places the incumbent contractor at an unfair competitive advantage because the incumbent has access to historical usage data but other offerors do not. Here, the RFP provides that the agency will “calculate the total evaluated price … by multiplying the duration and the proposed monthly recurring cost (MRC) …, and then multiply the Government undisclosed estimated quantities for each CLIN for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, and all option periods.” The RFP further advises offerors that the “undisclosed Government estimated quantities” will be “based on historical data and a reasonable expectation of the quantities needed for execution of the contract,” but “will not be provided to the offerors until after award.” Thus, the agency has the information needed to provide reasonable quantity estimates, it intends to use the information to prepare quantity estimates, and it intends to calculate offerors’ total evaluated prices using those quantity estimates. Yet, the agency has indicated, both in the RFP and in response to offerors’ questions, that it will not disclose those quantity estimates to offerors. Withholding the estimated quantities of services that will be used to calculate total evaluated pricing will deprive offerors of information needed to compete intelligently and, according to GAO, is not reasonable. Thus, in order to avoid an unnecessary bid protest, we respectfully request that the agency disclose all Government estimated quantities that will be used to calculate the offerors’ total evaluated prices.

The Government will not disclose the estimated quantities.

AMD 002

Government Response to Questions Question # 48

Response

Is it a correct interpretation of the Government's response that the items depicted in the Nominal Connection Diagram for each site constitute the list of GFE?

No, the notional diagrams are not a list of GFE.

AMD 002

Government Response to Questions Question # 94

Response

Is it a correct interpretation of the Government response that the the list of GFE available for pre-installation testing and evaluation will not be provided until award of the respective Task Orders? If so, request the Government reconsider and supply the requested information prior to award so the Task Order Level of Effort, Tools, Parts, Materials and Test Equipment (TPM&TE) required can be properly documented and priced when the contractor is bidding on Task Order level requirements.

No, the Government will not reconsider.