Attch_0012_March_2_2018_combined_references_and_questions_and_answers_amend_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T-18-R-0008
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a draft request for proposal for the production and sustainment of tactical troposcatter transmission systems. The Army seeks a potential 10-year contract to procure TROPO systems from an original equipment manufacturer to support Project Manager Tactical Network and Product Manager Network Modernization. Key details include performance specifications for the TROPO systems, pricing requirements, evaluation criteria, and logistics requirements. Offerors must demonstrate system capabilities during source verification demonstrations at Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range by meeting key performance parameters and attributes for throughput, distance, setup time, antenna alignment, and transportability. The response seeks to engage industry and incorporate feedback prior to releasing the official RFP.
Responses to Industry Questions
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Combined questions and answers
| Question Number | Reference | Question | Answer |
| 1 | PWS and Section B | It remains unclear where each specific PWS paragraph maps to each CLIN, recommend that the Government provide a matrix with the total PWS to CLIN mapping to ensure industry provides meaningful responses to the RFP. |
As an example, Pricing sheet clearly calls out PMO mapped to CPFF, however it is unclear which PWS paragraphs would map to the CPFF items. Mapping would state (as an example): PWS paragraph 3.1.1.1 maps to CLIN 0109 Services CPFF etc.
| Recommend Government follow same process for every PWS numbered paragraph as per the enclosed attachments to this question set | The Government has made updates to the PWS to correct numbering issues. The CLINS have also been revised to show the correct references to the PWS. | |||
| 2 | Section B-Supplies/Services | Since this is an IDIQ contract where award amounts will be set forth on future task orders, recommend the Government utilize the pricing spreadsheet without requiring pricing fill ins for Section B. | The Pricing Spreadsheet and Instructions, Attachment 0009, may be used to price CLINs in lieu of entering prices in Section B. | |
| 3 | Section B-Supplies/Services CLIN 0106 Repair of Spares, CLIN 0107 Training-Army, CLIN 0108 Training-USMC | Narration states shipment is FOB origin while inspection and acceptance states FOB destination. | CLIN 0106, 0107, 0108 is changed to be Inspection and Acceptance Destination, and FOB Destination. | |
| 4 | Section B-Supplies/Services CLIN 0119-Obsolescence Escrow Account | Narration states shipment is FOB destination while inspection and acceptance states FOB origin. | CLIN 0119 is changed to be Inspection and Acceptance Destination, and FOB Destination. | |
| 5 | Section I-139 and PWS 3.1.45 Warranty Performance | The additional warranty language inserted in the PWS appears to be in conflict with the appropriate applicable FAR clause. | The PWS has been updated to address the warranty language and FAR clause 52.246-17 | |
| 6 | Section I-139 Paragraph (2) | Request the Government clarify that industry is only responsible for transportation cost of warranty units to the Government. Recommend that the Government remove the additional warranty language in the PWS or reconcile with the FAR 52.246-17. | This is correct, industry is only responsible for transportation cost of warranty units to the Government. | |
| 7 | Section I | Payments for cost-type contracts (FAR 52.216-7) is not incorporated. | Already included in solicitation# W15P7T-18-R-0008. See Solicitation | |
| 8 | Section L-5 | FAR 52.215-22 is included. Request the Government remove this clause as the associated FAR clause 52.215-23 which necessitates FAR 52.215-22 is not cited. | FAR clause 52.215-23 is added to solicitation as this is a required clause. | |
| 9 | Section L-10 | Section L-10 states a DPAS rating of DO while the cover page states DPAS rating as NONE. Request the Government clarify the DPAS rating. | DPAS rating in section L has been changed to none | |
| 10 | Section L.14.9 | Will the Government permit the use of Foldout (11 x 17) for complex Tables (Compliance Matrix) and graphics only? If yes, will Government consider a 11 x 17 as 1 page? | Foldouts of 11 x 17 are permitted for drawings and complex tables (such as the compliance matrix) and will be counted as one page. Drawings or other graphics shall be reduced only to the extent legibility is not lost. Any table or graphic shall have a minimum of ten (10) point Times New Roman font. See revised section L | |
| 11 | Section L-16 | Proposal must be submitted via email. Recommend the Government also accept proposal submittals via AMRDEC as this will alleviate any email size concerns and minimize potential issues with encryption. | The Government will accept proposal submittals via AMRDEC | |
| 12 | Section L-Volume 4 Past Performance | In the request for information on terminations for default, notice of default, no-cost settlement, etc, the request states three (3) years at the beginning and five (5) years at the end of the section. | Section L has been changed to three (3) years. | |
| 13 | Section M 1.2 | Proposals will be evaluated by Non-Government SMEs. Request that the Government provide points of contact names and email addresses for the evaluating firms for the purposes of establishing NDAs. | This is a responsibility of the Offeror as part of the proposal process. | |
| 14 | Section M 1.2.1 | Request the Government please provide insight as to how a strength(s) impacts the evaluation scoring. When a strength exceeds the USG threshold will that constitute a scoring improvement (i.e will it move a rating from blue to purple?). Will all strengths have the same impact on scoring (i.e will minimal threshold strengths be accounted for in the same manner as strengths that significantly exceed threshold requirements)? | Strengths may be awarded for performance that exceeds threshold levels. | |
| 15 | Section M 1.2.1 | In PWS Appendix A there are several objective requirements which have no mechanism for recognizing value above threshold as this is rated as acceptable/unacceptable as they are not evaluated as part of Section L 1.2.1 subfactor 1, element 1 and 2. Will the Government consider adding these elements that have objectives beyond threshold as part of the tradeoff evaluation? | The Government will not be adding additional items to be evaluated in the tradeoff analysis | |
| 16 | Section M 1.2.1 Element 2 (a) | System is emplaced IAW PWS Appendix A, section 3.16.15, all components and subcomponents are installed for operations, system is ready to transmit, and system is ready for antenna self-alignment. It appears the reference to 3.16.15 is incorrect, request that the Government please update to the correct reference paragraph. Should this be 3.6.15? | Section M has been updated to 3.6.1 - 3.6.8 and 3.6.15. | |
| 17 | Section M I.2.1 Element 2 (b) | Should the Government not make change recommended in question 19, as per MIL-STD-188-124B, this will require significant resistance surveys and tests, ground resistance values will vary based on soil conditions. This is an undue burden on Government Test personnel since they will be evaluating site ground conditions instead of system performance. Recommend removal of requirement for execution of 3.14.3 during the SVD and instead add language that the Government will verify that the offerors system includes an appropriate grounding system. | Appendix A of the PWS has been updated accordingly | |
| 18 | Section M I.2.1 Element 2 (c) | References requirement 3.12.6 state the system shall comply with the design criteria of MIL-STD-1472G section 5.9.15 for connectors. This is a new requirement from the Government for SVD. Compliance with the requirement by PVT will not alter KPP and APA performance verified under the SVD. | 3.12.6 has been removed from Section M. | |
| 19 | PWS Appendix A, requirement 3.14.3 | The referenced MIL-STD-188-124B section 5.1.1.1 10 ohms is for Fixed permanent facilities installation and not for transportable or tactical systems such as the ANT/TRC-XXX. PWS section 3.1.27.6 sets forth a requirement for the offeror to provide an Army approved grounding system. Recommend PWS Appendix A 3.14.3 be replaced with PWS section 3.1.27.6 in order to ensure complete consistency. | Appendix A of the PWS has been updated accordingly | |
| 20 | Section B, Attch_0001 PWS, and Exhibit_A-CDRL. All PWS numbers and references to those numbers. | It appears that between the draft RFP and the final RFP, the PWS paragraph numbering scheme was updated. When this update occurred internal PWS cross references appear to not have updated. Furthermore, the CDRL documents PWS references now appear to be misaligned. However, section B CLINs do map to the PWS. | The CDRL PWS references have been updated | |
| 21 | Exhibit A Master PWS CDRL List, A077, A063 | CDRL documentation is missing from the master sheet. Request the Government provide the missing CDRL documentation. | The CDRLs are included with the updated Master CDRL sheet | |
| 22 | Attch_0009_TRPO_Pricing_ak_09FEB2018_1332, Total Evaluated Price | We believe there is a minor error on the pricing spreadsheet. Recommend the Government update the formula in tab "total evaluated price" cell B12 to pull total from the Tab CPFF Cell D24? | The Pricing Spreadsheet and Instructions, Attachment 0009, has been updated to correct the error. | |
| 23 | Attch_0009_TRPO_Pricing_ak_09FEB2018_1332, Evaluation Weighting & Quantity | Range quantities within TROPO, Warranty and Spares vary from the Evaluation, Weighting & Quantity. | The change has been made to the pricing spreadsheet and instructions, Attachment 0009 to have quantities consistent with Evaluating, Weighting and Quantity | |
| 24 | PWS, Section 3.1.5 | Requirement to develop an integrated product support strategy, but no deliverable is identified. | Bullets 3.1.5 through 3.1.6.7.2 comprise aspects that shall be included as part of the strategy. 3.1.7 begins the section that identifies deliverable requirements that cumulatively convey the Offeror's Integrated Product Strategy, ending with 3.1.23.7.3.9.1. | |
| 25 | Solicitation W15P7T-18-R-0008 and Attch_0002_PWS_Appendix A_-_SPS, Section L-16 | Attachment A SPS states threshold and performance objectives as contract shalls. Contractors are required to propose a compliance matrix to thresholds and objectives. Please confirm that, in the case of objective requirements, the contractor will only be bound to their compliance matrix statement to affirmative or negative during contract performance. | ||
| In the case of objective requirements, Offerors will only be bound to their compliance matrix statement of affirmative or negative during contract performance. A negative response to a objective requirement will not invalidate a proposal | ||||
| 26 | PWS and Attch_0009_TRPO_Pricing_ak_09FEB2018_1332, Section 3.1.44, Warranty Pricing | Request that the Government please clarify how the warranty should be priced in the pricing spreadsheet. Should each year be the total price for the term of the warranty-ie Year 2 has the cost of the 24 month warranty, or should it be the incremental cost-ie year 2 shows the cost for the second year of the warranty? | Each year should be the total price for the term of the warranty-ie Year 2 has the cost of the 24 month warranty | |
| 27 | Section B, Attch_0001 PWS, and Exhibit_A-CDRL, PWS 3.1.35, and CDRL A003 | The contractor shall conduct evaluations of HFE design requirements. The Contractor shall report results in CDRL A003, Contract Performance Report (DI-MGMT-81861A). Request the Government confirm that this is the appropriate CDRL reference. | Note: PWS section numbering updated - this is now addressed in 3.5.1. This report shall encompass all facets of the contractor's execution of requirements for the TROPO system | |
| 28 | Section B, Attch_0001 PWS, and Exhibit_A-CDRL, PWS 3.1.35, and CDRL A003 | The Contractor shall continuously monitor the technical performance of this contract, and all subcontracts, and deliver to the Government a quarterly assessment report IAW Data Item A003, Contract Performance Report (DI-MGMT-81861A). This CDRL is typically reserved for cost type CLINs. Request the Government confirm that this CDRL is only applicable to CLINs 0109, 0110, 0112, 0115. | The CDRL applies to CLINS 0106, 0109, 0110, 0112, and 0115. 0106 will be included as well being a CPFF CLIN. | |
| 29 | PWS | The standards cited for compliance do not appear to be the correct standards, the ANSI standard is not the main standard for engineering drawings and ASME Y14.34M implies standard units as metric, which does not apply to associated lists. | The change from ASME Y14.34M to ASME Y14.34 has been made in Attachment 0001 - PWS. | |
| 30 | PWS 3.1.12.1 | CDRL A007 lists DI-SESS-81000E as the authority for Product Drawings, Models and Associated Lists. As the Government is accepting developmental drawings, recommend the Government specify DI-SESS-81002E instead. Additionally, normally the special tools and equipment have DIDs from MIL-STD-31000 that require a lower level of documentation. Request Government clarify rationale for requesting Level 3-Drawings for special tooling and special inspection equipment. | Based upon the PWS section identified, this requirement is to support the procurement or manufacture of an interchangeable item, which duplicates the physical and performance characteristics of the original product, without additional design, engineering or recourse to the original design activity. Thus, the DID identified should be followed. The reference to level-2 drawings would apply to NDI components not subject to special design/manufacturing considerations. So, there is a need for both developmental as well as production level drawings to be included in the TDP. The contractor should include both types of data into the same package/CDRL deliverable in accordance with the requirements of the PWS. Also, level 3 drawings are requested for special tooling and inspection equipment to support remanufacture or competitive re-procurement of assets to support TROPO sustainment. | |
| 31 | PWS 3.1.16.1.2.1 | It is anticipated that there will be three training conferences. Does the Government anticipate that these will be combined training conferences or will each service have its own conference? | These should considered to be separate events for purposes of this proposal. | |
| 32 | PWS 3.1.16.1.3.3 and 3.1.16.2.3.3 | Request the Government clarify the acronym TDC. | The PWS identifies the acronym of TDC as Tabular Data Control. Tabular Data Control is a Microsoft ActiveX control that will sort through a data file, extrapolate the necessary information, and produce that information in specified areas on a web page. | |
| 33 | PWS 3.1.47 | Efforts in support of this contract, upon approval by the Government, shall require the Contractor to include purchase of COTS software products/licenses to support the PM Tactical Network mission. This task appears to be stating that the contractor will procure licenses above and beyond what are included in the proposed solution, please clarify which licenses the Government is intending for the contractor to purchase and whether these purchases will happen under CLIN 0109 or CLIN 0114. | PWS amended to remove PM Tactical Network mission; replaced with TROPO system. This will happen under CLIN 0114. | |
| 34 | PWS 3.1.52 and 3.1.53.3 | The Government has insufficiently defined the parameters of these external systems to allow contractors to provide an FFP response for these items. Recommend the Government execute these tasks under CLIN 0109 or alternatively provide industry with a full definition of the indicated turnkey networks. | The Offeror has an option to include this in their price as a firm fixed price item. Offerors can add a row in the Attachment 0009 Pricing Spreadsheet and Instructions under "Other FFP" tab if they chose to include the cost in their proposal. Additional blank lines have been provided in this tab for these items. | |
| 35 | Pspec, paragraphs 3.6.17.1, 3.6.17.2 and 3.16.15 | Requirement 3.6.17.2 and 3.6.17.4 reference “sustained wind loads and gusts while in its operational state” and also points to 3.16.15 which states, “The system shall withstand a steady wind.” Can the government please clarify the intent of “withstand” versus “operational state” in regard to these requirements? As written, the requirements seem to make no differentiation between operational testing and withstand (i.e. surviveability) testing. | When the system is in an operational state IAW PWS Appendix 1.3.2. "Withstand" is written to be defined as meeting the performance requirements in 3.6.17, "Pointing Loss." | |
| 36 | 30 Nov 2017 Pspec, paragraphs 3.4.6 Modem, sub-paragraph 3.4.6.4 | The previous System Performance Specification dated 23 May 2017 specified in para 3.4.6.4 that "The system shall provide automatic power control for adapting the transmission power to the link conditions. (See Note 8 in Section 6 regarding Power Control)." The final PSpec has deleted the automatic power control requirement. Without this automatic power control, changing atmospheric conditions can cause the link to become saturated and fail to maintain closure. In addition, the capability allows reduced power (i.e. fuel) consumption in conditions requiring less power for link closure. | Automatic Power Control is not a defined requirement by the requirements provider. | |
| 37 | Pspec, paragraph 3.10.1.2 | Request that the Government provide the System Total Annual Operating Hours (AOH). | Setup/tear down times and AOH are mutually exclusive. | |
| 38 | Sect L Addendum CPG&I-SVD, paragraph C, sub-paragraph C.4.j.5-7 | A next-generation TROPO radio has a large number of unique modulation and FEC combinations across multiple symbol rates (channel sizes). This results in a large number of unique performance settings for the radio. Each would have to be tested for all three MITRE profiles to comply with this requirement. Providing data for all scenarios would require 540 continuous days of testing. This requirement penalizes radios that provide an increased level of flexibility. | In 4j, The government is requesting BER curves for each modulation and coding combination using MITRE profiles A, B, and C. System performance BER curves and how the system operates with the NTIA guide are 2 separate data requests in the SVD addendum. 4a (Spectral Compliance) and 4j (Waveform Characteristics) are mutually exclusive data requests and should be responded to separately | |
| 39 | Pspec, paragraph 3.8.3.1 | Does full support of MIB-2 variables include Read or Read/Write. Request that the Government please clarify. | Per PWS Appendix A, 3.8.3.2, MIB-2 support, device support for SNMP shall include private, vendor-specific MIB variables to allow monitoring, management, control, and configuration of system parameters. MIB-2 variables should be read/write | |
| 40 | Sect L, L-16, Para A pg 62 Para A. Format pg 63 | The Proposal Submission Requirements in Section L.16A identify the page count and names for the three (3) separate sections for Volume 1. The format instructions do not provide guidance for the difference in content for the "Tech Performance Data" section and the "Tech Performance Support Info" section. Request that the Government clarify the difference in content between the "Tech Performance Data" section and the "Tech Performance Support Info" section. | TECH_PERFORMANCE_DATA_MMDDYYYY is where Offerors shall provide responses to the SVD Addendum. TECH_PERFORMANCESUPPORT INFO_MMDDYYY is the where the Offerors can utilize to provide corroborating data showing how requirements are met. | |
| 41 | Section L Addendum - CPG&I for the SVD, paragraphs 3.a - 3.d and 4.a - 4.t | Section L Addendum-CPG&I for the SVD requires Offerors to provide performance data and information but Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements, does not include a Volume Number or page allocation for that data and information. | TECH_PERFORMANCE_DATA_MMDDYYYY is where Offerors shall provide responses to the SVD Addendum. | |
| 42 | Section L Addendum - CPG&I for the SVD | The PWS Appendix A Performance Specification does not identify any KPPs or APAs. Contractor assumes these to be Throughput, Distance, Set-up Time, Antenna Self-Alignment, and Transport. Request that the Government specifically | ||
| state the KPPs and/or APAs. | Section L Addendum - CPG&I for the SVD has been updated to specifically state the KPPs and APAs. | |||
| 43 | Section L- 16.A, paragraph A | The required content of the 3 page Cover Letter is not provided. | There is no specific format for the cover letter, as long as it is within the maximum page limit. | |
| 44 | Section L Addendum CPG&I for the SVD, paragraph C.2.c | Will the offeror be permitted to replace/replenish any spares used to remedy a failure? | Offerors will be permitted to replenish spares. | |
| 45 | Section L Addendum CPG&I for the SVD, paragraph B.2. | Can you please clarify the facilities that will be available at the demonstration sites for contractor use? | The demonstration sites will be in a field environment. Port-a-johns will be at each demonstration location. There are no plans for anything additional. | |
| 46 | Section L Addendum CPG&I for the SVD, paragraph D.3.b. | Will the equipment be transported back to the storage location daily? | The equipment will not be transported back to the storage location daily but will remain in the field from the start of Monday through Friday. The systems will be transported back to the storage location on Fridays. - Setup/tear-down will occur each morning, allowing for an averaging of setup and teardown times over the course of the demonstrations. - Following initial setup, the demonstrations will run continuously with the exception for breaks to tear down/setup, until the defined time on Friday for teardown. | |
| 47 | Section L Addendum CPG&I for the SVD | Will the offerors be allowed to setup and utilize their own communications utilizing Satcom systems? | Offerors will not be allowed to setup and utilize their own communications utilizing Satcom systems. | |
| 48 | PWS, paragraphs 3.1.23.7.1 and 3.1.23.7.2 | Should PWS 3.1.23.7.1 and 3.1.23.7.2 paragraphs be deleted in lieu of 3.1.23.7.3 which is priced as part of CLIN 0119? If not, where should pricing for the 3.1.23.7.1 and 3.1.23.7.2 OEADP be included? | Numbering has been updated: 3.3.23.7.1 and 3.3.23.7.2 are the informational aspects of what is to be included in the OEADP - applicable items in 3.3.23.7.3 include the items that should be priced in CLIN 0119 | |
| 49 | PWS, paragraph 3.1.50 | Where should contractors price the scope to execute PWS 3.1.50 NON-PDSS Transitioning CSCIs? | This item is not typically separately priced. Offerors can add a row in the Attachment 0009 Pricing spreadsheet under "Other FFP" tab if they chose to include the cost in their proposal. Additional blank lines have been provided in this tab for these items. | |
| 50 | Pricing Spreadsheet and Instructions | Which CLIN(s) should include the pricing for: Product Verification Testing, Program Management, and US Army CDRLs? These are not specified in Section B? | Army CDRLs are not typically separately priced. Offerors can add a row in the Attachment 0009 Pricing spreadsheet under "Other FFP" tab if they chose to include the cost in their proposal. Additional blank lines have been provided in this tab for these items. | |
| 51 | PSPEC, paragraph 3.5.2.7 | This specification requires 2 SM and 2 MM channels. It does not specify which channel combination should be SM or MM. It also does not specify the SFP modules required as the US Army specifications 3.5.2.8 and 3.5.2.9 do. | The USMC baseband systems SFPs use the two SM strands. We are asking for the radio equipment connect its' SM channel (transmit and receive strands) to the MFOCA connector on the radio signal entrance panel (SEP). The MFOCA MM channel (transmit and receive strands) would go unused. | |
| 52 | PSPEC | The PSPEC does not specify the need for tunable filters as a required feature. This was a spec in the TRC-170 that was valuable for operation in frequency congested areas. In progressing from narrowband Klystrons in the TRC-170 to a wideband GaN SSPA, it is necessary to have tunable filters to suppress spurious TX signals. | The Government acknowledges this requirement should have been included; Updates have been made to Appendix A stating the following: The system shall have tunable transmit filter(s) on all channels. The system shall have tunable receive filter(s) on all channels. | |
| 53 | PSPEC, Table 6-1, Note 8h1 | Profile A utilizes 100ns tap spacing for a 31 ns delay spread. This is not a realistic scenario. | The Government has reviewed this and determined not to change | |
| 54 | Sect L Addendum CPG&I-SVD | How will government measure throughput and BER and over what time intervals? | Throughput and BER will be measured using T-BERDs. The PM will collect data at several intervals per hour throughout the duration of the demonstration. TBERD settings for throughput will be configured based on data requested on SVD addendum by Offerors. Vendors will have opportunities to make changes to the system to optimize performance | |
| 55 | Sect L Addendum CPG&I-SVD | Is a radiation hazard kit required for SVD, and if so, is its setup part of the timed setup? | Yes, a radiation hazard kit is required for the SVD. The setup of the kit will be included as part of the timed setup | |
| 56 | Sect L Addendum CPG&I-SVD | Can the Government please provide the official coordinates of the sites for the two test links? The preliminary coordinates previously provided were not 100% accurate. One location gave coordinates that put the site on the side of a hill. | The SVD will occur at Ft. Bliss, TX and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), NM. The coordinates provided identified the general location where the demonstrations will be held. The specific locations are subject to change and will be identified at the start of each demonstration by a Government representative. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .