Attachment__1_RFIMS_Q&A.pdf

SOLICITATION SP-133E-17-RP-0043

RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE MONITORING SYSTEM (RFIMS)

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

1. The final slide in the presentation “List_of_GFI_V.4.0.pdf” says “List of Documents (1 of

2)” at the top, but we find only a one-page list. Is there a second list of GFI documents, i.e., 2 of 2?

This is a typo and will be corrected.

2. Section L.7 of the Solicitation specifies font, page size and page limitations. We recommend that consideration be given to relaxing the current RFP requirement for 12-point font in graphics and tables and 8.5x11-sized pages. Instead, we request that 11x17 foldout pages for large tables and complex graphics be allowed, as well as 9-point font on graphics and tables.

Charts, graphs and/or tables will not be subject to the font limitations. Page sizes will remain however.

3. Section G – Contract Administration Data: We recommend that Clause G.1. 52.232-16

Progress Payments (Apr 2003) be deleted since it is used for firm-fixed price contracts. The correct clause FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment is contained in Section I-Contract

Clauses

The Progress Payments clause (52.232-16) will be removed

4. Section H.12, 1352.237-75-Key Personnel (Apr 2010): This clause assigns the Program

Manager as Key Personnel and requests resumes to be submitted to the Contracting Officer if the Program Manager is replaced. Is a resume of the Program Manager proposed by the

Contractor required with the proposal submittal, or is just the summary of the Program

Manager’s expertise, as required by the Volume II (iii) Management Plan, sufficient?

Offerors should provide the position description they will use to fill the PM position and describe what criteria will be used when filling the position. Any additional information the offeror provides is optional.

5. Section L.8 specifies electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Word 2000 and that data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by Microsoft Excel 2000.

Later in the same section, the Government states that electronic proposal be readable on hardware and software operating system format specified for Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF.

Are we correct in assuming that we may submit our proposal in Adobe PDF format?

Yes, you may submit your proposal in Adobe PDF format.

6. SOO Section 6, Page 12, Table 2 RFIMS KPP #6 – “Identification of RFI as LTE or non-

LTE at RFI, at a detection level of -161.4 dBW/180 kHz interference power spectral density with the probability of correct identification greater than 95% and the probability of false classification less than 5%.”

This KPP is in conflict with Section 4 Program Objectives, Paragraph 3, and subparagraph c.:

“Identify - The system should determine if the RFI, at -151.4 dBW/180 kHz interference power spectral density or higher, is resulting from … LTE UE … then identify the wireless carrier(s) responsible ...”

We recommend that the KPP #6 reference be changed to “-151.4 dBW/180kHz”.

This is a typo. It should read -151.4 dBW/180kHz.

7. The SOO states on page 11 item #14:

Providing the required system availability at 17 NOAA federal earth stations and the centralized management location as measured over a trailing 30-day period.

a. Provide at least 99% system availability at Wallops and Fairbanks command and data acquisition stations.

b. Provide at least 95% system availability at other NOAA federal earth stations.

However, the KPP table states:

Item #9: Provide an overall system availability of 95%

Item #10: Provide at least 99% system availability at Wallops and Fairbanks command data acquisition stations.

Item #11: Provide at least 95% system availability at other NOAA federal earth stations.

The KPP item 9 is in conflict with SOO paragraph 14. If “overall system” availability implies that all 17 Federal Earth Station sites and the Central Monitoring Facility must be available at the specified Ao, the resulting Ao would be less than 50%. To achieve 95% “overall system” availability in this case would require each remote site and the central site to be greater than

99.7%. However, if the intent is that a mission capability incudes the activity of reporting RF interference from any single remote site through the central site to the Wireless Service

Providers, then 95% (or 99% for Wallops and Fairbanks) is achievable.

We recommend updating the KPP table by deleting KPP 9 and modifying wording in KPPs 10 and 11 as follows:

Item #10: Provide at least 99% system availability at Wallops and Fairbanks, where system availability includes the reporting of RF interference from a single site through the central monitoring facility.

Item #11: Provide at least 95% system availability at all other federal earth stations, where system availability includes the reporting of RF interference from a single site through the central monitoring facility.

This is the availability objective for the RFIMS project. Additionally, offerors should include a discussion on availability in their proposals and describe how they propose to achieve the desired availability. Viable recommended alternatives are also welcome, but not required. Offerors should provide a rationale for their proposed availability solution(s). The language suggested for updating the Key Performance Parameter

(KPP) table is reasonable and updates will be made consistent with that. Additionally, the Government has made the following changes to address this comment:

Updated Objective 14 of Section 5 – System Objectives by removing the text stating

“as measured over a trailing 30-day period”.

Added the following text as bullet C under Objective 14: “Offerors should include a discussion on availability in their proposals and describe how they propose to achieve the desired metric. Viable recommended alternatives are also welcome, but not required.

Offerors should provide a rationale for their proposed availability solution(s).”

Updated KPP 10, in Table 2 of Section 6 – Key Performance Parameters, to state:

“Provide at least 99% system availability at Wallops and Fairbanks command data acquisition stations where the system availability includes reporting of RFI through the central monitoring facility.”

Updated KPP 11, in Table 2 of Section 6 – Key Performance Parameters, to state:

“Provide at least 95% system availability at all other NOAA federal earth stations where system availability includes reporting of RFI through the central monitoring facility.”

8. Will the Government accept priced options in addition to those identified in the B

Tables?

No, alternative proposals will not be considered. Due to technical complexity and time constraints the Government has determined to remove any alternative proposals or alternative CLIN structures reference from the RFP.

9. E.6.e : The description of the Government’s acceptance is incomplete. Please complete the second sentence.

The second sentence has been removed

10. For CLINs 2001-2004, both Initial and Full Operating Capability deliverables require

“minimum operational capabilities.” The same capability descriptions are given in SOO

Table 3. How does the Government intend to differentiate between Initial and Full

Operational Capability?

The Government is looking for “minimum operational capabilities” in each of the deliverables. The performing vendor will work as an integrated member of the

Government team (i.e., IPT) to define the specific requirements of the RFIMS system— the SOO states the Government’s objectives because we want offerors to use their expertise and capabilities to design and build a system that achieves the objectives stated in the SOO.

11. Does an individual with a DoD Top Secret or Secret security clearance meet the NOAA

Security Processing Requirement for High Risk contracts

The Federal Government standards for security processing are the same throughout the Federal Government. Each agency has an adjudication authority. It is ultimately up to them to make suitability determinations.

12. Perform unit and/or integration and/or system and/or regression testing/evaluation as required by Task Manager,” In this instance to whom does “Task Manager” refer?

This is security requirements language for Project Manager (the PM is generally responsible for managing tasks and everything else in the project).

13. Font type and size are not specified for graphics (i.e., tables, graphs, illustrations).

Recommend the Government include the industry standard of separate font specifications for graphics (e.g., Arial, no smaller than 8 pt.), which will make the graphics more legible, less cluttered, and will save space in the page-limited volumes.

The restrictions for font type and size with charts, graphs and tables have been updated.

14. Will the Government accept an Acronym List and a Cross-Reference Matrix as part of the front matter and exclude them from the page limitations?

The Acronym list and Cross-Reference Matrix has been added as those documents that will not count against page limitations.

15. Offerors are required to address how they will “achieve the program goals,” and the

RFIMS goals are referenced in the SOO. Please identify the RFIMS program goals

RFIMS is a project and the SOO now provides the currently defined project objectives.

16. Vol. III Past Performance is limited to 8 pages with a limit of 2 pages per past performance citation. Request the Government increase the volume’s page limitation to accommodate the required Summary.

The 8 page limitation will not be changed.

17. Please confirm the term “contract period” used in the third paragraph of this section is synonymous with CLIN.

This part of the RFP states: “Offerors will be asked to propose a total estimated cost for each contract period as well as their proposed fixed fee. Each contract period is aligned with the development phases identified in the SOO.” The CLIN structure and the development phases of the SOO are fully aligned.

18. Technical Capability evaluation criteria items 10 and 11 address the IMP and IMS, respectively. The IMP and IMS are required in the Organizational Capability, which has an evaluation criterion for IMP and not one for the IMS. Please clarify whether the IMP and IMS are to be part of Technical Capability, as well as Organizational Capability.

Sections L&M have been updated. The IMP and IMS are elements of the Technical

Approach evaluation factor.

19. Please identify the number of separate POES & GOES earth station downlinks that need to be monitored at each site.

All of them. Data loss due to RFI can occur in all data downlinks so all of them must be monitored, particularly since RFI will vary with time as do the orbits (and in-view status) of the satellites.

20. When defining the RFIMS functional capability “Classify”, the SOO states “classify is the discrimination between interference caused by 1695 – 1710 MHz LTE UEs or other co-channel RF transmissions and all other radio frequency interference (RFI) such as out-of-band and spurious emissions.” Is the objective to discriminate between in-band and out of band emissions, or between LTE and non LTE emissions? Does the system have to discriminate between LTE and other co-channel RF transmissions?

The scope (SOO Sec. 2, 2nd paragraph) includes the following statement: “The RFIMS must be capable of detecting RF interference, classifying the nature of RF interference

(e.g., LTE, non-LTE, out-of-band emission, or spurious emission), identifying the source(s) of interference, and notifying NOAA operators and wireless carriers of interference.” This is also clearly addressed/defined in SOO Sec. 5, item 3 “interference is defined as RFI from both 1695 – 1710 MHz and adjacent frequency band AWS-3

LTE and non-LTE transmissions…”. Table 2: RFIMS KPPs, item 4 also clearly defines this area.

21. How will the Government evaluate whether a standard is equivalent to CMMI 3 Dev?

The evaluation will be based on the standards of CMMI-3 certification. If not CMMI-3 certified, offerors should describe what processes and procedures they use to ensure quality and how that aligns with the standards of CMMI-3 certification. Provide any artifacts needed to validate assertions made in the discussion. The Government will assess the merits of the presentation and how well it aligns with CMMI-3 certification standards.

22. For the proper environmental scaling of the centralized site, should the centralized site be priced to support 32 or 17 sites in the proposal?

The centralized site should be priced to support 17 NOAA earth stations and include scalability for up to 32 NOAA earth stations. The cost of including scalability should be included in the design of the system. O&M will be limited to 17 NOAA earth stations.

23. The threshold given in the KPP is -161.4 dBW/180 kHz. Other parts of the document indicate the threshold is -151.4 dBW/180 kHz. Which value is correct?

-161.4 dBW/180 kHz is the RFI detection threshold. -151.4 dBW/180 kHz is the RFI threshold that triggers processing to classify and identify the source of the RFI.

24. The RFIMS is responsible for detecting interference in the NOAA downlink signal. Will vendor have access to a NOAA downlink feed?

The need to access a NOAA downlink feed depends on the system design proposed by offerors. Access to the NOAA satellite downlink signals can be accomplished independent of NOAA ground station equipment. Connecting to the NOAA network will require compliance with the associated security requirements of the NOAA network.

25. If the GOES-R Management Plan is correctly a required document, please provide.

Otherwise, correct the reference.

The GOES-R Management Control Plan is listed as a reference document that offerors may consult when preparing an EVMS plan. Preparing an acceptable EVMS Plan that is fully compliant with the EVMS requirement levied in the RFP is in no way dependent on access to or use of the GOES-R Management Control Plan. This reference should be removed from the list.

26. Are CLINs 3001 & 3002 to be priced based upon providing operations, sustainment, and maintenance for ALL of the following CLINs 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?

Yes, O&M CLINs shall cover all accepted units in CLINs 2001-2004.

27. Please confirm that CLINs 3001 & 3002 do not require or cover operations, sustainment

& maintenance for either of the optional CLINs 4001 & 5001.

CLINs 3001 and 3002 (O&M) will not cover optional CLINs 4001 or 5001.

28. Are operations, sustainment and maintenance for CLINs 4001 & 5001 expected to be priced as an additional optional effort? If so, will additional optional operations, sustainment and maintenance CLINs be added to cover such effort for CLINs 4001 &

5001?

Offerors are not asked to provide O&M pricing for CLINs 4001 or 5001.

29. Should CLIN 4001 be priced based upon all of the 18 DoD sites provided in Table 6 of the RFP Statement of Objectives?

Yes, please provide pricing for all of the sites associated with the CLIN.

30. Should CLIN 5001 be priced based upon all of the 5 DoI sites provided in Table 6 of the

RFP Statement of Objectives?

Yes, please provide pricing for all of the sites associated with the CLIN.

31. Can an offeror propose additional optional additional CLIN tasking which would not be part of the existing CLINs? And if proposed, can the government confirm that such additional optional tasking will be excluded from the offeror’s evaluated cost and fee?

No, alternative proposals will not be considered. Due to technical complexity and time constraints the Government has determined to remove any alternative proposals or alternative CLIN structures reference from the RFP.

32. For CLIN 4001 there are two DoD sites that are called out in the RFP Statement of

Objectives Table 6 as: “Continental U.S. Location To be Identified”. In order to make sure contractors are evaluated equally, is there a specific location that contractors should assume in formulating their pricing for these two “To be Identified” locations?

Offerors may use the USMC Monterey, CA location or the Omaha, NE site to formulate their pricing for the “’To be Identified” locations.

33. Would the government want to change FAR 52.243-2 “Changes – Cost Reimbursement”

Alternate 1 to Alternate 2 given the nature of the overall work?

Alternate 1 will be replaced with Alternate II.

34. Are proposals required to be encrypted?

There are no requirements for proposals to be encrypted. If offerors so choose to encrypt proposals, the typical standard is AES256. The offeror is ultimately responsible for ensuring the Government is able to receive and access the encrypted information PRIOR to the proposal due date. Additionally, all proposals whether submitted by the prime or a subcontractor must adhere to all requirements set forth in the RFP.

35. The Government updated Section 5 – System Objectives, Objective #3 to state: “The system will be capable of monitoring for RF interference to Federal earth station receivers, where interference is defined as RFI from both 1695 – 1710 MHz and adjacent frequency band AWS-3 LTE and non-LTE transmissions, and will be limited to below the -161.4 dBW/180 kHz interference power spectral density threshold. NOAA defines interference as any degradation to the required satellite signal quality at federal earth stations where the interference level is at or above the -161.4 dBW/180 kHz interference power spectral density threshold.”

“NOAA desires a system capable of detecting any interference equal to or higher than an interference power spectral density of -161.4 dBW/180 kHz. However, NOAA also realizes this receive sensitivity may result in the monitoring system triggering many notification events.”

“NOAA encourages vendors to propose a solution that balances the need to identify qualifying interference events yet serves as an effective and suitable system for the

NOAA operational environment.”

“NOAA defines an effective and suitable system as meeting the technical objectives in a manner that does not create a burden for operational end users such as providing excessive notification alarms due to intermittent interference events occurring between the detection and identification or classification thresholds.”

“Offerors should address this challenge in their proposals by describing how they plan to achieve system objectives while implementing a solution that is operable or will work well in NOAA’s operational earth station environment.”

36. The Government updated Section 5 – System Objectives, Objective #11 to state: “A description of the modularity and extensibility for the proposed monitoring system and what is required to support upgrades such as, ability to operate in additional frequency bands (e.g., S-Band frequencies) and ability to classify and identify signal waveforms for developing and new wireless technologies such as:”

a. “LTE-Advanced, LTE-Advanced Pro, and future 3rd Generation Partnership

Project (3GPP) LTE releases”

b. “Fifth Generation wireless systems and future 3GPP radio access technologies”

c. “Technologies that currently or are planned to support the Internet of Things

(IoT)”

i. “LoRa Alliance Technology Low Power Wide Area Network specification that is projected to provide long range communications based on chirp spread spectrum modulation”

ii. “LTE Machine Type and Machine-to-Machine Communications”

iii. “LTE Narrowband IoT”