SBS0026 RFP QandA_Redacted.pdf

Question RFP Page RFP Section/ Paragraph CLIN/ Clause/Appendix/Attachment/Other Questions/Comments/Recommendations Government Responses

6.3.8.4.3 Fault

Performance and Availability Data HC101320R0014 20210406 Final.pdf

There are a variety of techniques employed to address threats to communications channels and to achieve varying protective levels of SATCOM transmission security.

Modem developers employ these techniques singly or in combinations differently, and no prescriptive standard is in place that defines requirements for COMSATCOM TRANSEC solutions. Commercially available modem and managed VSAT network platform “TRANSEC” solutions for SATCOM therefore vary widely. Given the definitive language of following requirement under PWS 6.3.8.4.3 “ • Modem embedded TRANSEC AES-256 synchronization status (when embedded modem encryption is enabled).”, is it correct to understand that modem-based capability to enable AES-256 traffic encryption on MSC NGW FO satellite links satisfies the TRANSEC requirements specified in this Section and elsewhere in the PWS?

The Government confirms that AES-256 enabled modems meets the TRANSEC requirements listed in the reference section when encrypting commands to the user terminals (signaling channels) and elsewhere within the PWS.

2 Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing

Worksheet Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet, CLINs x054 through x066

There is only one set of CLINs for terrestrial backhaul for both the Sustainment network and the Modernized network. Offeror terrestrial solutions will differ greatly between the sustainment and modernized network, making it impossible for Offerors to propose one backhaul cost for both networks.

Will the Government amend the CLIN structure to include a series of terrestrial backhaul CLINs for each network (i.e. CLINs x054a-x066a for the Sustainment network and CLINs x054b-x066b for the Modernized network)?

The Government has updated attachement 1 - Section B to add additional CLINs for sustainment and modernization.

3 Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing

Worksheet Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet, CLINs x068 through x080

There is only one set of CLINs for teleport services for both the Sustainment network and the Modernized network. Offeror teleport solutions will differ greatly between the sustainment and modernized network, making it impossible for Offerors to propose one teleport cost for both networks.

Will the Government amend the CLIN structure to include a series of teleport CLINs for each network (i.e. CLINs x068a-x080a for the Sustainment network and CLINs x068b-x080b for the Modernized network)?

The Government will update attachement 1 - Section B to add additional CLINs for sustainment and modernization.

Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing

Worksheet Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet, CLINs x068 through x080

There is a teleport CLIN for each region, however Offerors may have one teleport that support multiple regions (i.e. the same teleport may support both Europe and the Middle East).

In order to prevent the Government from being overcharged for teleport services, will the Government amend the CLIN structure so that teleport services are not tied to a region, but instead proposed based on the Offerors solution (i.e. – CLIN x068 – Teleport 1, CLIN x069 – Teleport 2, etc.)?

Duplicate (See Question #3)

Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet, QTY column (G)

Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet, QTY columns (G) are blank. Furthermore the instructions state, “The Government will calculate the total evaluated price by multiplying the duration and the proposed monthly recurring cost (MRC), add the proposed non-recurring cost (NRC), and then multiply by the Government undisclosed estimated quantities for each CLIN for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, and all option periods. By not disclosing the estimated evaluation quantities, the Government evaluation severely advantages the incumbent as they are the only Offeror with knowledge of historical ordering activities.

In order to allow for fair competition of all Offerors, will the Government provide the estimated quantities for evaluation purposes?

The Government is using undisclosed estimated quantities for each CLIN for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, and all option periods. Fleet thresholds have been provided in the PWS for all parties.

PWS 6.5.2

Section M2.2, SF4

Reference: Section M2.2, Subfactor 4 requires offerors to submit a 10-page “Risk Management Plan”.

PWS 6.5.2, which is required as part of the response to Subfactor 4 references a Program Management Plan.

Question: Is the requirement for offerors to provide a Cyber Risk Management Plan?

Would the Government please also confirm whether the PWS 6.5.2 in Section M2.2, Subfactor 4 is correct?

The Risk Management Plan is not specific to cybersecurity but should address the vendors plan to mitigate risks to the program as a whole (e.g. workforce changeover, schedules, management).

131 L2.0.2

Question: Will the Government confirm they do not require reiteration of the RFP and PWS, and if necessary, proposal reference back to relevant RFQP/PWS sections is sufficient for compliance purposes?

The Government does not require reiteration of the RFP and PWS. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation (Section L4.1) Contractor proposal reference back to the RFP and PWS sections are sufficient.

PWS 6.1.4.2.1

Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing

Worksheet

Attachment 7 – Appendix C

PWS 6.1.4.2.1 lists bullet #3 as Norfolk (planned). Attachment 7, Appendix C, identifies this location as NCTAMS-LANT.

Since NCTAMS-LANT is identified as a planned requirement, would the Government please confirm that it maps to CLIN 0067A, which will be priced post award, at the task order level?

CLIN x067A is not specified for just NCTAMS-LANT, but for all unspecified and future terrestrial requirements.

PWS 6.1.4.1

PWS 6.1.4 indicates that the contractor shall provide access to the public internet, while PWS 6.1.2 states that the contractor shall deliver the terrestrial network to the MDPs.

Would the Government please clarify whether traffic should be routed to the MDPs or to the public internet?

The Government confirms that traffic should be routed to the MDPs referenced in Section 6.1.4.2.2.

PWS Section 6.1.4

PWS Section 6.1.4.1 indicates that the contractor shall provide access to the public internet, but does indicate at what data rate access is required, or which CLIN should include public internet access costs.

If access to the public internet is required, will the government provide required data rates and either confirm which CLIN should include associated costs, or provide a separate CLIN for public internet access?

The Government confirms that access to public internet is required. Data rates must be sufficient to acccess vendor developed web tool via a browser.

11 18 PWS 6.2.2.3.2

PWS 6.2.2.3.2 and PWS 6.1.4.2 specify that 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.

Would the Government please clarify whether or not the 65 small form factor (portable) SATCOM systems are included in, or are in addition to, the 105 MSC fleet SATCOM systems?

The Government confirms that the 65 Carry-ON SATCOM systems are in addition to the 105 MSC fleet SATCOM systems.

16 PWS 6.2.1.1.4

PWS 6.2.1.1.4 specifies that at a minimum, the contractor shall support secondary L- Band, global satellite communications (as defined in PWS 6.1.2.3) managed services at minimum data rates of 64 kbps with options for enhanced data rates of 128 kbps and 256 kbps when outside of the above Primary and Transit Regions.

Would the Government clarify whether or not the L-Band global satellite communications equipment is GFE or is to be contractor furnished?

The Government confirms that L-band/FBB equipment is owned by the Government.

Attachment 1, Attachment 6, PWS 6.2.1.1.6, 6.2.2.3.2, L1.0

Attachment 1 provides a single CLIN type covering all terminals in each region.

Attachment 6 provides four sustainment terminals, three of which are somewhat similar, but also includes Terminal 3 Carry-On SATCOM terminal, which is a very inefficient terminal.

L1.0 states "It is MSC’s objective to leverage the most effective blend of commercially available shared and dedicated services to support MSC satellite requirements."

The instructions in Attachment 1, Attachment 6, and Section L1.0 are all conflict. We can perform the listed requirements of L1.0 with a contract award, but it is not possible pre-award without RFP clarification/modification.

Since the inefficient carry-on terminals are separate from standard shipboard terminals, will the Government provide separate subscription service CLINs for the sustainment and modernization period for Carry-On SATCOM Terminal service?

The Government has updated Attachment 1, Section B, to include seperate CLINs for Afloat and Carry-On SATCOM Terminals.

Attachment 1, Attachment 6, PWS 6.2.1.1.6, 6.2.2.3.2, and L1.0

Attachment 1 provides a single CLIN type covering all terminals in each region.

Attachment 6 provides four sustainment terminals, three of which are somewhat similar, but also includes Terminal 3 Carry-On SATCOM terminal, which is a very inefficient terminal.

L1.0 states "It is MSC’s objective to leverage the most effective blend of commercially available shared and dedicated services to support MSC satellite requirements."

We request the Government update the PWS 6.2.1.1.6 and 6.2.2.3.2, and take one or both of the following actions to assist bidders:

1. Separate the Carry-On SATCOM terminal from the larger sustainment network so bidders can provide said effective blend of commercially available shared and dedicated services.

2. Provide a more accurate terminal allocation (by type) per region. A blanket statement such as "all terminals must be supported" is insufficient for this purpose.

This information is needed so we bidders do not have to budget for Carry-On terminals in each region.

The Government has updated Attachment 1, Section B, to include seperate CLINs for Afloat and Carry-On SATCOM Terminals.

PWS 6.1.3.2, 6.9,

13.1, L2.2.1, L4.2.1.1, Attachment 6, Attachment 12

As the Government is clearly aware, multiple new market entrants are entering the COMSATCOM market, and several modernization efforts are expected over the next several years but may not be available today. As such, some of the information required to be provided as attachments (e.g. Link Budgets, CIAQ, SARs) may not be accurate or available since the satellites are not in service.

Would the Government please confirm that such attachments are not required and excluded from the modernization proposal deliverables?

6.1.3.2 States, "When utilizing a geosynchronous satellite, satellite must be station-kept. When proposing MEO or LEO satellites, constellation must demonstrate persistent coverage of the required location / area." The Government will not accept inclined orbit satellites." Additional, the Government has provided further langauge in 6.2.2.4, that states "upon execution of these optional services, link budgets, coverage maps, draft Transmission Plans, a transition plan for the re-configuration of the services, and updates to the CIAQ shall also be included and will be subject to AO approval and acceptance.

16 PWS 6.1.2.1,

Attachment 1, Attachment 6

PWS 6.1.2.1 and Attachment 1 lists 10 primary regions and 2 transit regions, while Attachment 3 lists 9 primary regions and 3 transit regions.

Will the Government confirm Transit region 2 within Attachment 3 should actually be Primary region 9? Or, should region 9 within PWS 6.1.2.1 and Attachment 1 actually reference it as a transit region?

Attachment 1 lists the correct 10 Primary Regions and 2 Transit Regions. The Government will update Attachment 3 to change Transit 2 to Primary Area 9.

252.225-7023 Preference For

Products Or Services From Afghanistan

This provision is only supposed to be included in the situations listed under [see 225.7703-2 Determination requirements]

Would the government please remove this provision from the solicitation or clarify the reason for its inclusion?

The Government has removed 252.225.7703-2 from the required provisions/clauses.

8, 9 6.1.2.1, 6.1.2.2 Attachment 3

There is a discrepancy between the RFP section and Attachment 3 with regards to the Pacific Ocean region. Is Pacific Ocean region a primary or transit region? Attachment 1 lists the correct 10 Primary Regions and 2 Transit Regions. The Government will update Attachment 3 to change Transit 2 to Primary Area 9.

10 6.1.3.2 last sentence last states: "Space segment must be offered on satellite(s) that is currently on-orbit, operational, and station kept; inclined orbit satellites will not be considered." For mobility services inclined satellites are a viable and cost effective option and should be allowed if contractor meets the specified performance. Also future satellites scheduled for launch provide improved performance and should be considered as an overall modernization strategy as long as the modernized plan meets the specified performance. It is suggested the Government allow offerors to propose inclined satellite usage and the ability to propose future satellites for modernized service.

The Government will update PWS 6.1.3.2 to include, When utilizing a geo satellite, satellite must be station-kept. When proposing MEO or LEO satellites, constellation must demonstrate persistent coverage of the required location / area."

The Government will not accept inclined orbit satellites.

14,15 6.2.1.1.2, 6.2.1.1.3 Table 3, 4

The estimated # of terminals in Table 3, and 4 seem to be for the modernized case of 170 total terminals or is that just a coincidence. These numbers differ greatly from the draft RFP. Should these estimates be used for determining the amount of BW required in the regions for the sustainment BW estimates? The Government will update the PWS to clearly delineate total terminals during sustainment and modernization.

18 6.3.1 Transition Support Plan

The second paragraph states: The Government will provide the contractor with feedback on the "draft Transition support plan included with their proposal"… This plan is not called out in Section L. Is this a proposal deliverable, if so is there a DiD or format for it, page limit?

The reference to transition plans has been removed from Subfactor 3. The offeror shall include the draft Transition Support plan as part of their techinical proposal. Section L has been updated with the following, "The Transition Support Plan shall be limited to 10 pages and is outside of the technical proposal page limitation."

145 3 Subfactor 3

This paragraph calls out a separate Management Plan, 20 page limit outside of the 50 page Tech volume that is not referenced in Section L. Is there a DiD or format for this plan? The requirements for proposal submission are listed in Section L2.2 and following. No further format restrictions unless otherwise stated.

145, 146 4 Subfactor 4

This paragraph calls out a separate Risk Management Plan, 10 page limit outside of 50 page Tech volume that is not reference in Section L. Is there a DiD or format for this plan?

The requirements for proposal submission are listed in Section L2.2 and following. No further format restrictions unless otherwise stated.

Option Period Tabs Attachment 1

Since it is not clear how outyear Ku Service plans will be factored into the price analysis, for those offerors that are modernizing the terminals to Ka networks, pricing outyear service plans for a diminished or non-existent number of terminals on a Ku network could unfairly bias those offerors who do not modernize to a Ka network.

CLINs for sustainment and modernization have been provided concurrently for each year, covering the life of the contract. The PWS Section 6.3.2 states, "The plan should be developed with the assumption that twenty percent of the fleet (approximately 21 ships) will be available for modernization upgrades and installation per year."

14 6.2.1

Is the intent to keep the full sustaining service (i.e. total amount of capacity for the duration) until all ships are modernized? Is there an acceptance criteria or event to shut down sustaining service? Duplicate (See Question #24)

Modernized Pricing Attachment 1

Will the government be open to alternative pricing model that provides a modernized service in accordance with the PWS but prices it differently than asked for in Attachment 1 - i.e. not price by the regions shown, but either on a larger regional scale or global? No, the Government cannot accept an alternative pricing model. The clause at will be removed from the RFP.

Attachment 1

Can the government provide more details on their price evaluation criteria around the transition from sustaining to modernization and how they plan to evaluate a mix of existing and sustaining systems in the network.

No. The undisclosed Government estimated quantities in the Schedule B Pricing Worksheet are for evaluation purposes only, and are based on historical data and a reasonable expectation of the quantities needed for execution of the contract.

Training pricing CLIN 0087 Attachment 1

Training should priced based upon the NRC to create the training curriculum and material and in addition then the fixed price per training event. CLIN 0087 is not set up in this manner.

The Government will add an additional CLIN x087B to separate training course design and materials from the training events.

Equipment Warranty CLIN0102A Attachment 1

Does the Government have any failure rate data on existing terminals, does the Government own any spares pools that would be transitioned from the incumbent.

Need this information to determine CLIN NRC and MRC. Assume the MRC is a 1;1 price per ship vs a total fleet Sustainment as a service.

The Government does not maintain a spare pool and cannot provide failure data rate on existing termianls.

Warranty pricing is based per-system (ships and NOCs).

Installation CLIN 0101 Attachment 1

Clarify that the Installation NRC pricing is intended to be a nominal price based on section 6.3.3 for a single ship. Noting different classes of ships may have different installation requirements, how do we ensure all bidders are bidding the same scope. Can the Government provide a sample scope of work to bid to based on the requirements in section 6.3.3 The Government has updated CLIN x101 to x101/A/B/C to seperate out installation by weight class.

Attach 1 CLINS 0028-0053

The spread sheet does not provide for a 24 month period for these CLINS. Is this the Governments intent or is that an omission? Since the Sustainment 3 year base period includes 24 months duration of Ku and 12 months duration of Modernized; is the intent that the Government would like to start modernized service in year 3 of contract?

There are no changes required. This is an IDIQ construct, the Governments intent is to provide flexability for ordering.

55 H 52.204-22

The clause states that the Offeror is invited to propose alternative line items. In order to submit a fully compliant proposal does the offeror have to propose all CLINS in Attachment 1 and in addition submit alternate line items or can the offeror modify Attachment 1 and propose alternate line items in lieu of the RFP established CLINS?

The Government has removed FAR 52.204-22

139 L L.5.1.3

Please explain why Certified Cost or Pricing Data would be required under a FAR Part 12 Procurement. It is understood that in a single source situation that additional cost and pricing data may be required in order to support a price analysis, but to certify pricing information for a commercial product is not appropriate.

The Government does not require certified cost or pricing data. However, If, after receipt of proposals, the KO determines the required conditions of adequate competition do not exist or that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness, and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror may be required to certify its submitted cost or pricing data (see: FAR FAR 15.406-2-- Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data).

143 M M1.1.3 and M1.1.4

It is not clear which CLINS will be utilized in the development of the total evaluated price. Many CLINS have multiple performance period options. Can the Government clarify more precisely how the evaluated price will be calculated.

The Government will calculate the total evaluated price for the Section B Pricing Worksheet by multiplying the duration and the proposed monthly recurring cost (MRC), add the proposed non-recurring cost (NRC), and then multiply by the Government undisclosed estimated quantities for each CLIN for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, and all option periods. The option pricing for the additional 6-month period will be calculated as half of the total for option period 4. The estimated quantities used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the offerors until after award. The undisclosed Government estimated quantities in the Schedule B Pricing Worksheet are for evaluation purposes only, and are based on historical data and a reasonable expectation of the quantities needed for execution of the contract.

Attach 1 CLINS 0001-0024

The CLIN structure separates pricing between forward and return links within a region. Will the Government allow pricing to be combined into a single CLIN for a period of performance. It is not expected that the Government would purchase a forward link period of performance different from a return link period of performance in the same single region.

The Government has updated the CLIN list to a single CLIN for a period of performance. Addtional CLINs have been added to support Carry-ON SATCOM terminals.

19 6.3.2

Is a separate Draft Modernization Plan due with the proposal as a separate document? If so is their a page limit or a DiD The Government did not find a reference to Draft Modernization Plan

19 6.3.2

1st paragraph states: The plan should be developed with the assumption the twenty percent of the fleet (~21 ships) will be available for modernization upgrades and installation per year. What about the balance of the 170 ships. What is their availability? There are only 105 ships, the remaining 65 terminals are Carry-On SATCOM terminals.

32 6.9.

Does the Government expect separate CIAQ documents for the sustaining networks (Primary and secondary) and for the modernized networks (primary and secondary) or can they be combined into a single CIAQ document? The Government will not accept seperate CIAQs.

17 6.2.2.1.1 Appendix A

Does the MSC have a requirement for Dual antenna configurations to deal with ship structure blockage or are all class of vessels supported by a single antenna configuration for Primary or X-Band? There is no dual antenna requirement to deal with ship structure blockages.

Appendix A

The sustainment terminals 3 and 4 quantities are not in this release. Are they the same as the draft RFP? The Government has updated the quantities for Appendix A.

17 6.2.2.1.1, 6.2.2.1.2 Attach 1

If industry meets the modernized requirements with 2 classes of antennas, how would the government like to see the pricing table filled out for the class that is not needed? For example a solution that only needs the small and medium ADE/BDE and not the large what do we put in pricing table for the large ADE and BDE as NA is not acceptable?

Proposals that quote “not separately priced” or “NSP” prices will not be considered complete, but $0 priced CLINs will be considered complete.

21 6.3.4.1

Does MSC plan to have critical spares on-board? Will industry own any spares pool? MSC has limited space for critical spares. Industry will be required to meet the maintenace and repair requirements outlined in the PWS.

23 6.3.8.3

Does the following requirement indicate that we have to maintain historical data for 10 years (life of contract). "Contains an historical database of monitored data collected and stored over the life of the contract" Yes, the offeror will be required to maintain historical data for the life of the contract.

16 6.2.2.1

Can USG provide a list of WGS-certified X-band antennas? Having reached out to SMDC, ARSTRAT states only the PMO can provide this information. The offeror will have to discuss with manufactures to determine if the offered terminal is WGS certified.

18 6.2.2.3.1

Does USG anticipate modernized secondary service to be wideband capability? Given the throughput rates requested, all L-band solutions (traditionally, the preferred option due to weather resilience and maximum possible coverage) will be non-compliant and options in other spectrum bands will be much more expensive.

Per the PWS 6.2.2.3.3 the minimum requirement is 512Kbps. The Secondary modernization does not require L-band as the solution.

23 6.3.8.1

Can USG describe how it plans to share live, unsecured/public data onto SIPRNet? The offeror will have to port data to the SIPR Web tool.

9 6.1.2.3

Current sustainment services for secondary communications is provided by Inmarsat using FleetBroadband, but the current solution only covers 70N to 70S. The MSC PWS states current sustainment services must cover 80N to 80S. Can USG relax and/or clarify these coverage requirements for the sustainment managed services? The Government will update the PWS to relax the required coverage area under sustainment to 70N to70S.

13 6.1.4.3

Can USG provide the list of GFE and configurations currently installed on MSC assets to support ship failover? The Government will provide a notional connection diagram in the PWS section.

16 6.2.1.1.4

Can USG clarify which FleetBroadband terminals are currently installed used for secondary service? Pricing is dependent on the terminal efficiency of the currently installed equipment. Fleet Broadband terminal is the Cobham Sailor 500 FleetBroadband

16 6.2.1.1.5

Can USG provide the dedicated data rates required by the MSOCs? It is not in Appendix A. The Government will update the PWS section 6.2.1.1.5 to included the required data rates for MSOCs.

16 6.2.1.1.6

Can USG provide the dedicated data rates required by the Carry On Ashore/Afloat terminals? It is not in Appendix A. The Government has updated 6.2.1.1.6 to add the required data rates for the Carry-On SATCOM Terminals.

16 6.2.2.1

Can USG clarify on the statement that the primary and secondary antennas require TRANSEC capable modems? No L-band provider can support TRANSEC. The Government has updated the requirement to clarify that TRANSEC will only be required on the SLM- 5650B modems.

17 6.2.2.3

In relation to the secondary service, the requirement is 95% of 80N -80S, 512 kbps full duplex, and TRANSEC capable. There is no GEO, MEO, or LEO constellation today that can support all three of those requirements simultaneously (80N - 80S, 512 kbps full duplex, and TRANSEC capability). How does USG reconcile these requirements with the current state of commercial SATCOM offerings?

The Government will update the PWS to relax the required coverage area under modernization to 70N to70S.

18 6.2.2.3.2

Can USG provide the anticipated size, weight and power of the modernized ashore/afloat terminals? No. Modernized terminals are based on Vendor's proposed solution.

24 6.3.8.4.3

The specification requires SNMP (Simple Network Management protocol) for modem polling. There are versions of SNMP that are not, by today's standards, considered safe. Will USG allow for alternative approaches to gathering the modem data?

The Government will update the PWS to state that SNMP v3 or newer shall be utilized to conduct modem polling.

36 11.1 & 11.2

Typically, commercial shipboard SATCOM equipment installers do not have security clearances, and, around the world, most are not U.S. citizens. Since "the majority of the work to be performed for this contract will be at the unclassified level" Ref 11.1, will USG allow foreign nationals to perform installations, alongside uncleared U.S. Citizens, if the U.S. Citizens are acting in a supervisory role of the foreign nationals?

The PWS requirement states that personnel performing the action must meet the security requirements outlined in PWS Section:

General

FAR 52.225-2, 52.225-3, 52.225-4 and 52.225-5 are spelled out in great detail between pages, but the RFP does not stipulate that these clauses are included specifically or included by reference. Can the Government please so stipulate their inclusion? The clauses are included

58 NA Modernization (Base) Period Attachment 1 - Section B Pricing Worksheet; CLIN 0101

Attachment 1, Modernization (Base) Period tab, CLIN 0101 lists "Modernization Equipment Installation Supplies & Services" - presumably capturing all costs association with the modernization supplies and services apart from the antennas which have separate CLINs. This CLIN is problematic for several reasons:

1) Duration Mismatch: With this CLIN structure, the Government would be required to execute the CLIN within the first year of contract performance to commence the modernization activities, but wouldn't receive all of the supplies and services covered by the CLIN until as late as year six of contract performance. It is not in the Government's interest to combine six years of installation activities and supplies into a single CLIN that will be exercised almost immediately upon award.

2) Unknown Quantities: To quote the modernization supplies and services, Offerors need to know how many of different antenna weight classes will be purchased as these different weight classes have different modernization equipment supplies and services requirements. Without known quantities against the weight classes, Offerors are unable to provide an accurate quote for the modernized equipment installation supplies and services

3) Unknown Class Variations: Ships within classes have variances that require alterations to installation supplies and services, and subsequently impacting costs.

These variances will be unknown until Offerors are able to complete their surveys as part of the modernization installation efforts. Installation supplies and service quotes should only be finalized after completion of the surveys.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government delete CLIN 0101 and utilize the following strategy for the different cost elements of the modernization equipment installation supplies and services:

Modernization Installation Equipment: The Government already has separate CLINs for the different antenna classes. Recommend the Government create additional CLINs for the associated modernization equipment supplies associated weith each weight class: a CLIN for Small Weight Class Modernization Equipment Supplies; a CLIN for Medium Weight Class Modernization Equipment Supplies; and a CLIN for Large Weight Class Modernization Equipment Supplies. For purposes of evaluation, the Government can then multiply the unit cost by the undisclosed quantities similar to all other CLINs with a unit cost.

Modernization Installation Services: Recommend the Government utilize the existing CLIN 0084 for FSR Support as the cost capture for modernization installation services. Modernization Installation Services will vary vessel-to-vessel and will only be finalized once the the pre-installation survey is completed. The Government should require modernization installation serivces be billed to the FSR CLIN (or some other labor CLIN) at the task order (TO) level. Labor associated with TO-specific modernization installations should not be incorproated in Offerors' overarching IDIQ proposals. For purposes of evaluation, the Government can multiply the FSR Support unit cost (or other labor CLIN designated by the Government) by an undiclosed quantity - weighted with consideration that this CLIN would capture the modernization installation services.

See Question 30.

59 11-12

6.1.4.1. Teleport

Service Requirements

HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.1.4.1, Paragraph 4: For the existing service which must be Sustained by the incoming Contractor, are there “QoS policies for traffic management and optimization technologies that maximize end-user Quality of Experience (QoE) in accordance with Government Requirements.”? If the answer is yes, are these traffic management and optimization technologies wholly realized through features of the iDirect platform, or is there/are there other technologies, equipment, software, etc.

employed by the current systems the incoming Contractor must be aware of and account for to effect a compliant transition of the Sustainment services? Please specify/describe all such items and functionalities and the extent to which, if any, the Government reasonably expects this requirement to impact achieving successful cutover of active circuits within the 30-minutes of downtime limit imposed in PWS 6.3.1 (e.g., will the Contractor – or MSC – be required to access BDE to reconfigure, disable, or remove an incumbent capability that the Contractor realizes by other means?). Bidders must understand such constraints in order to craft compliant and accurate Transition Support Plans.

The Government currently manages the QoS using features of the iDirect platform, Solarwinds, and Digital Rapids software.

60 12

6.1.4.2.1. MSC

Designated Points of Presence (MDPs)

HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf PWS 6.1.4.2.1 MSC Designated Points of Presence (MDPs): Regarding the MDP locations specified here and in Appendix C, we understand that there are several on-net locations at Wahiawa, HI, but that the location Specified in Appendix C is not one of these locations. Is the location specified in Appendix C the exact location at which the Contractor must provision the CFE and terminate their terrestrial connection? If the answer is no, please furnish an alternative address.

The Government confirms the address listed for NCTAMS-PAC is the only connection required for Wahiawa, HI.

61 14, 15

6.2.1.1. Service

Level Requirements

& 6.1.3.2.1.1 End-to- End Service Performance

Requirements

HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Will the Government please clarify if/how the service level requirements for Primary and Transit regions in 6.2.1.1 Table 3 and Table 4, respectively, and the link availability figures in 6.1.3.2.1.1 apply to the carry-on SATCOM terminals referenced in PWS 6.2.1.1.6 and 6.2.2.3.2? Duplicate.

62 16-18 6.2.2 NGW

Modernization HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

General Question on Modernized Primary, Transit, and Global coverage areas and throughput requirements: By what means will the Government evaluate proposals that exceed the specified coverage areas and or exceed (or demonstrably possess the capability of exceeding) specified terminal throughputs? How might bidders propose enhanced levels of service when the CLIN structure and CLIN quantities are prescribed? Advantages of truly modernized service capabilities will be difficult to convey and quantify within the confines of the current proposal and pricing structure.

The Government has updated the CLIN list to annotate minimum CIRs for all throughput CLINs. Offerors may propose data rates that meet or exceed the required minimum by pricing accordingly in Section B. Offerors shall ensure that proposed data rates are document in their technical proposal within the relevant PWS section reference per the instructions tab on Attachment 1.

63 16 6.2.2.1 Modernized Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

Please describe the MSCs concept of operations for use of TRANSEC. For industry to develop compliant, Best Value solutions, it will be important to understand MSC’s TRANSEC usage intent through answers to these questions. Answers to these questions will allow industry to more accurately allocate equipment and bandwidth resources in support of TRANSEC operations, and thereby increase cost effectiveness of proposed solutions over having to cover worst-case TRANSEC usage scenarios.

Question: What is the anticipated frequency of TRANSEC link use in terms of percentages of active MSC links with TRANSEC enabled and with TRANSEC not enabled?

The Government confirms that TRANSEC will not be an always-on requirement, but is unable to provide provide usage characteristics.

64 16 6.2.2.1 Modernized Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf What is the anticipated average duration of TRANSEC enabled operations – i.e., whether TRANSEC operations will be episodic and invoked on short-term bases, or, once directed to be enabled, TRANSEC operations will likely persist for the duration of a mission (or any profile between these cases)? The Government only requires TRANSEC over the GFE SLM-5650B Modems.

65 16 6.2.2.1 Modernized Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

Regarding this language in PWS 6.2.2.1 “If requested by the Government, the contractor shall provide the capability to enable transmission security (TRANSEC) over the modernized GFE modem by encrypting commands to the user terminals (signaling channels)at the Government’s request.”

Question: Does “GFE modem” refer to the modernized primary and secondary service modems, the titles for which are conveyed to the Government upon delivery after which it becomes GFE, to the GFE SLM-5650B modem cited in RFP Attachment 6, or does this statement apply to both modem types?

The Government confirms that "GFE modem" refers to the SLM-5650B Modems. The Government will update the PWS to provide additional clarity.

66 16 6.2.2.1 Modernized Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

Regarding this language in PWS 6.2.2.1 “If requested by the Government, the contractor shall provide the capability to enable transmission security (TRANSEC) over the modernized GFE modem by encrypting commands to the user terminals (signaling channels)at the Government’s request.”

Question: If the SLM-5650B is included in this reference, are GFE SLM-5650B modems used with the modernized solution equipped with the SLM-5650B TRANSEC Module?

Yes, the SLM-5650B modems include the TRANSEC modules.

67 17 6.2.2.1.2 Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Is the GFE SLM-5650B to be included in the 12RU allocation afforded to the Contractor's modernized below deck solution? Or is it outside of the 12RU constraint? The SLM-5650Bs are not included in the 12RU allocation.

68 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Is it correct to understand that BDE for modernized Primary and Secondary antenna systems must fit into the allocated 12 Rack Units of space? If not, please clarify what antenna system(s) must be supported by the 12 RU allocation. The Government confirms that the Primary and Secondary BDE must fit within the 12RUs allocated.

69 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Please confirm that the uninterruptible power supply (UPS) is excluded from the 12-RU rack allocation for BDE. The Government confirms that if a proposed solution includes a UPS, it would be required to fit within the

12RU.

70 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Please furnish the Height, Width and Depth dimensions for the GFE BDE equipment rack used for the current NGW and NGW FO solutions. The dimensions for the equipment rack are: Height 70 inches, Width 22.2 Inches, Depth 36 inches.

71 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Please describe available BDE space and proximity with respect to the Sustainment and Modernization BDE rack for Tertiary X-band antenna equipment (including

GFE SLM-5650B modem, ACU, etc.) for ships subject to X-band NGW FO installation.

With respect to tertiary X-band, BDE space availability is limited to the existing NGW rack and will support a maximum height dimension of up to 2U (3.5 inches).

72 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Is the Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) referenced in this Section supplied by MSC or is provision of the UPS the responsibility of the Contractor?

The Goverment 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.

73 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Is it correct to understand that the UPS on-battery run time requirement extends to operation using Primary or Secondary antennas only and does not include supporting operation across Primary, Secondary and or Tertiary antennas?

The Government only requires Primary and Secondary Antenna systems, there is no requirement for tertiary antennas.

74 17 6.2.2.1.2. Below Deck Equipment HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.2.2.1.2 Below Deck Equipment: Please describe the shipboard LAN architecture(s) to which Contractor-furnished BDE must interface aboard MSC ships and at MSC shoreside stations. Please provide interface diagrams and or drawings as well as governing Interface Control Documents (ICDs). This information will assist bidders in correctly scoping BDE requirements in terms of equipment provisioning and cost.

The Government will update the PWS Section 6.2.2.1.2 to include an interface diagram for the BDE.

75 18 6.3.1 Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Regarding PWS 6.3.1 Transition Support Plan, will the Government please clarify whether the draft Transition Support Plan included within the Offerors proposal is to be included within the seaparate 20-page "Management Plan" set-aside for Subfactor 3 - or somewhere else? Clarifications have been made to the PWS, and reference question #21.

76 18 6.3.1 Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf If the draft Transition Support Plan is not to be included within the 20-page "Management Plan," will the Government please clarify where this plan is to be included and the page limitation? Clarifications have been made to the PWS, and reference question #21.

77 18, 25 6.3.1 Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

Between PWS 6.3.1 and the Deliverables Table on p. 25, please confirm that the Transition Support Plan cycle is correctly described as:

days to refine the TSP IAW government comments and submit the TSP per specified distribution requirements.

If this sequence is incorrect, please clarify the requirements.

Clarifications have been made to the PWS, and reference question #21.

78 18-19 6.3.1. Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.1: Transition Support Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Transition Support Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

1. Does the 30-minute requirement pertain only to cutover of the terrestrial circuits that aggregate user circuits and route them to the MDPs, or does this requirement pertain to shipboard or shoreside terminal transition from incumbent to Contractor-provided transport services?

The Government confirms that the 30-minutes of downtime to the end users applies to both to the cutover of terrestrial circuits and shipboard/shoreside terminal transition.

79 18-19 6.3.1. Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.1: Transition Support Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Transition Support Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

2. If the 30 minute requirement pertains to shipboard and shoreside terminal transitions, does this requirement only pertain to on-mission or otherwise manned and operational ships and shoreside stations since these are operationally more critical than non-active terminals.

The Government will update the PWS requirement to provide clarity. All circuits must be individually transitioned with no more than 30 minutes of downtime.

80 18-19 6.3.1. Transition Support Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.1: Transition Support Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Transition Support Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

3. If the 30 minute requirement pertains to shipboard and shoreside terminal transitions, is use of the Secondary Service during Primary Service transition to avoid service outages across the sustainment service an acceptable means of satisfying this requirement?

The Government confirms that use of the Secondary Service during primary transition is acceptable to avoid outages across the sustainment service.

81 19 6.3.2 Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Will the Government please clarify the modernization requirements for the 65 portable SATCOM systems referenced on page 12 of the RFP? Will moderniztaion work be required on these vessels as part of the modernization effort?

The 65 Carry-On SATCOM terminals are not designated primarily for ship based communications. Installation work is not expected as part of this effort.

82 19 6.3.2 Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf Regarding PWS 6.3.2, Modernization Plan: Please specify at which PMR is the initial draft of the Modernization Plan is to be delivered to the Government, or at what point ACA is the Draft Modernization Plan due for initial submittal?

The PWS states, "The Modernization Plan will be delivered and briefed at each scheduled PMR. The Government will provide the contractor with feedback and schedule updates on the proposed Modernization Plan within 30 days of the PMR. This feedback will illustrate the sequence and start dates of events based on the contractor’s provided durations of events. The contractor shall update and deliver the updated Modernization Plan within 14 calendar days of receipt of Government feedback."

83 19, 20 6.3.2 Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

Regarding the modernization plan, RFP states "The plan should be developed with the assumption that twenty percent of the fleet (approximately 21 ships) will be available for modernization upgrades and installation per year." Furthermore, ABS approval is required before alterations can be made to the vessels, which can take take up to 12 months as indicated on page 20.

Will the Government please clarify the modernization timeline? It seems that if all drawings were submitted on Day 01, approval for the modernization installations to begin wouldn't be provided until base year two at the earliest. And if only 20% of vessels are available for modernization upgrades and installations per year, the earliest an offeror's modernization timeline could have the fleet fully modernized is the start of the second year during Option Period 2?

The Government has provided an anticipated timeline twenty percent of the fleet (approximately 21 ships)

84 19 6.3.2. Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.2: Modernization Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Modernization Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

1. Does this requirement only pertain to on-mission or otherwise manned and operational ships?

Duplicate.

85 19 6.3.2. Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.2: Modernization Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Modernization Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

2. Is use of the Secondary Service during Primary Service modernization to avoid service outages across the Modernized service an acceptable means of satisfying this requirement? If so, will the Government waive the Primary Service SLA requirement when Backup Services are invoked during Primary service installation in any Primary or Transit region?

Duplicate.

86 19 6.3.2. Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.2: Modernization Plan: This section levies the requirement that the Modernization Plan demonstrates cutover of active end user circuits with no more than 30 minutes of downtime to the end users.

3. Will there be sufficient BDE space on every ship to accommodate installation, testing, and verification of Modernized BDE while Sustainment BDE is operational and still available for service? If the answer is No, will the Government provide waivers to the 30-minute requirement that reflects that installed, tested, and verified Modernization BDE will only become available after Sustainment BDE has been uninstalled? If BDE space to support parallel operation of Sustainment and Modernized equipment is not available we recommend that the Government relax the 30-minute requirement to one that recognizes that significant ADE and BDE reconfiguration is required to realize any best value modernization installation solution.

The Government will update the PWS Section 6.3.2 to state that the 30 minute downtime requirement does not apply during the installation of modernization equipment.

87 19 6.3.2. Modernization Plan HC101320R0014_20210406_Final.pdf

PWS 6.3.2 Modernization Plan, and PWS 13.1 Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs): Is it the Government’s intent to use the Contractors Modernization Plan in lieu of ECPs as the governing deliverable associated with the Contractor’s approach to modernizing the MSC fleet? If the answer is no, please describe the extent to which deliverable ECPs will be required in order to accomplish modernization. If ECPs are so required, what is the Government’s anticipated timeline for reviewing and approving modernization ECPs?

SBS0026 is an IDIQ. The Modernization Plan will be used by the Government to place orders. Quotes provided at the order level will be reviewed prior to acceptance.