CNR Responses to Industry Questions -- CNR Solicitation - Final - 20 July 2021.pdf

Reference # Document / Source Page / Paragraph Question Gov Response

1 PRD N/A

Can the Government please confirm when each document takes precedence: the 1523F Specifications or the solicitation?

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification. Additionally, please see PRD paragraph 5.3 Order of Precedence.

2 N/A N/A

Can the Government please provide a model contract with anticipated award quantities broken out per CLIN for years 1‐5? If this level of detail is not yet known for the full timeframe, is it possible to provide an estimated list of the CLINs and quantities anticipated for Delivery Orders 1 & 2?

This information is pre‐decisional; however, a notional programmatic schedule has been provided as part of the RFP. Please reference Attachment 0012, CNR PROPOSED PROGRAMMATIC

SCHEDULE.

Delivery Order 0001 (minimum guarantee) is anticipated to include 80 First Article Test RTs (CLIN 0001), and ~ 3,000 RTs (CLIN 1001AA) to be accepted by the Government pending successful completion of First Article Test.

3 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for the Patriot data mode to meet the three (3) critical timing parameters: TPTT‐DDCO, TDTT, and TRT.

Please confirm. Correct.

4 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements to interface directly to the Low‐Profile Manpack antenna AS‐3683/PRC and containing matching circuitry specify for that antenna. Please confirm.

Not Correct.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

5 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver Sensitivity. Please confirm. Correct.

6 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver Residual BER. Please confirm. Correct.

7 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver Selectivity. Please confirm. Correct.

8 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver audio distortion. Please confirm. Correct.

9 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver input circuit protection. Please confirm. Correct.

10 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Receiver desensitization. Please confirm. Correct.

11 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for SINCGARS and NATO Squelch. Please confirm. Correct.

12 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Transmitter Noise Floor. Please confirm. Correct.

13 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Radio Based Combat ID (RBCI). Please confirm.

Not Correct.

RBCI is not a Threshold mode at this time. Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

14 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Universal Net Situational Awareness (UNSA). Please confirm.

Not Correct.

PM TR considers Universal Net Situational Awareness (UNSA) to be closely related to RBCI and is not a Threshold at this time.

15 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for COMSEC fill via DS‐102 and DS‐101. Please confirm.

Correct.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

16 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Radio Remote HMI (RCU Mode). Please confirm.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification. Therefore an alternative may be proposed.

17 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Remote Control 2‐ wire/6‐wire. Please confirm.

The legacy Radio Remote HMI specifications are not available for release; therefore, an alternative may be proposed.

18 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Remote Intercom. Please confirm.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification; therefore an alternative may be proposed.

19 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Time Delay mode. Please confirm. Correct.

20 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for 600bps SDM mode. Please confirm. Correct.

21 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Electromagnetic interference. Please confirm. Correct.

22 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for RT Current Consumption. Please confirm. Correct.

23 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Situation awareness. Please confirm.

PM TR considers the SA requirement to be closely related to RBCI and is not a Threshold at this time.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

24 PRD N/A

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the SINCGARS ORD requirements for interoperability with the AN/GRM‐114B for direct support maintenance. Please confirm. Correct.

25 PRD 1.2

Based on the statement in the PRD 1.2 mentioning the VRC‐92F (Dual PA VAA System) and PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to provide a unit that will interface with the existing RT‐1523F RF PA (AM‐7238B). Please confirm. Correct.

26 PRD 3.1.1.5.2

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for the RF connector to be a special BNC Female with N Type strain relief PN A3167886‐1. Please confirm. Correct.

27 PRD 3.1.1.5.9.9

to comply with the RT‐1523F External Control Interface (ECI) interface Control document (ICD) in A3272678 as existing external weapon systems use the ECI to set the mode, send commands and receive status from the radio and deviation from this interface will impact system integration, interoperability and compatibility. Please confirm.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification; therefore, an alternative may be proposed.

28 PRD 3.1.4.1.1

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to interoperate with the RT‐1523F SKL Key Load Profile over DS‐102 (A3191133) to load COMSEC and hopsets/presets for SINCGARS. Please confirm.

Correct.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

29 PRD 3.1.5.5.1

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for the nuclear compliance in accordance with A3140904 Nuclear survivability. Please confirm.

Correct.

Please refer to PRD paragraph 3.1.5.5.1 and SINCGARS 1523F specification at paragraph 4.8.3.6

30 PRD 3.1.5.5.2

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) IV protective gear. Please confirm this requirement will be removed as the RT‐1523F specification includes no such requirements.

Not Correct.

The radio is intended to be used in the same environment as the soldier, including MOPP‐IV.

Please refer to updated PRD paragraph 3.1.5.5.2 through paragraph 3.1.5.5.6 for more details.

31 PRD 3.1.5.5.3

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for contaminated operation. Please confirm this requirement will be removed as the RT‐1523F specification includes no such requirements.

Not Correct.

The radio is intended to be used in the same environment as the soldier, including MOPP‐IV.

Please refer to updated PRD paragraph 3.1.5.5.2 through paragraph 3.1.5.5.6 for more details.

32 PRD 3.1.5.5.4

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for operated for decontamination. Please confirm this requirement will be removed as the RT‐ 1523F specification includes no such requirements

Not Correct.

The radio is intended to be used in the same environment as the soldier, including MOPP‐IV.

Please refer to updated PRD paragraph 3.1.5.5.2 through paragraph 3.1.5.5.6 for more details.

33 PRD 3.1.1.5.9.5

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for Night Vision Operation. Please confirm. Correct.

34 PRD 3.2 / 3.3

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F LRU Specification requirements for MTBF. Please confirm. Also, the PRD has marked these requirements as threshold and they contain text for "Objective".

Not Correct.

The requirement is specifically for a software‐defined radio solution. The Threshold is correct as written and is aligned with expectations of other SDRs in the portfolio. To be clear, Offerors shall address Threshold requirements. The term "Objectives" has been removed.

35 PRD 3.5.1

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F requirements for remote and retransmission using the 2/6‐wire interface. Not having this requirement will cause a field interoperability issue between the RT‐1523 and Modernized CNR radios from different vendors. Please confirm.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification.

The requirement for interoperability between CNRs from different vendors does not extend to remoting and retrans using radios of different types.

The 2‐wire/6‐wire specifications are valid, but do not extend to control over another type of CNR.

36 PRD 3.5.2, 3.5.3

to comply with the RT‐1523F requirements for interoperability with the existing SINCGARS ECDU and VRCU accessories. Not having this requirement will cause a vehicular kit installation/interoperability issue between the RT‐1523 and Modernized CNR radios from different vendors. Please confirm.

To allow for competition, the Government has accepted that some solutions may require adaptation to operate with legacy hardware. The extent of this adaptation is expected to be minimal when measured in terms of complexity, cost, and training. Please refer to the updated Attachment 0001, PRD, paragraphs 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 regarding HMI specifications, as well as the exceptions in PRD paragraph 3.8.

37 PRD / CompliaN/A

Respectfully request the RT‐1523F LRU specification (A3307042 Rev. H) be included in the PRD Compliance Matrix to ensure all offerors have a clear indication of full compliance of this mandatory requirement in support of the full and open competition and to avoid PRD inconsistences.

Request to add the RT‐1523F LRU specification (A3307042 Rev. H) into the compliance matrix is denied. The document is available upon request and is not reprinted within the Compliance Matrix.

Every effort is being made to eliminate inconsistencies.

38 PRD 3.4.1, 3.4.2

Several of the requirements in these sections call for "interoperable with legacy RT‐ 1523" in FH3. Respectfully request that these requirements be updated as the Legacy RT‐1523 does not support FH3.

This error is corrected in the updated Attachment 0001, PRD. Please reference Attachment 0001 PRD, Version 3.0, and Attachment 0003, PRD Compliance Matrix, Version 3.0. There is no expectation that CNR will be interoperable with legacy RT‐1523 when using either CT2 or FH3.

39 PRD 3.6, 3.7

The FMS CNR variant is missing many details, to include Export SINCGARS waveform, an Embedded Commercial GPS receiver, English and Arabic display and input language options, and Pavillion COMSEC with country specific COMSEC packages, that would allow an interoperable unit to be adequately bid.

Respectfully request that the Government defer the request for pricing of the FMS variants until post‐award when the scope of the technical requirements can be provided.

Please reference Attachment 0001, PRD, Version 3.0; Attachment 0003, PRD Compliance Matrix, Version 3.0; and Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, Version 2.0 . Offerors shall provide a not‐to‐exceed (NTE) ceiling price for FMS variants.

40 DD254 Block 13 Some of the text carries over to the page footer and is not legible. Please provide an updated document with all of Block 13 legible.

The Government verified that the PDF includes all of the text in Block 13, and is legible. Please ensure that you are using the most current version of Adobe PDF.

41 RFP / SF 33 Section 3 Please confirm that pricing is to be entered into the Attachment 0007 Pricing Spreadsheet only and not in Section B of the SF 33. Confirmed.

42 Attach 14 / SecA.1.d In which volume should Offerors include the copies of the proprietary agreements it executes with the non‐government advisor firms?

Offerors/subcontractors may submit separately and independent from any of the proposal volumes via email to the Contracting Officer at Bradley.a.phillips14.civ@mail.mil, and contract specialist at Lee.Alexis.civ@mail.mil. These shall be submitted not later than the due date for proposal submissions. This will not count against the page count for any section of an offeror's proposal.

43 Attach 14 / SecA.2.c.(i)(1)(a)

Please confirm all Offerors must deliver their hardware for the Hardware Evaluation at the same time, understanding that the Hardware Evaluation dates will be separated and the timing provided individually to Offerors.

The Government intends to have all offerors deliver their hardware for the hardware evaluation on the same day.

44 Attach 5 / FAT NA

Recommend that the FAT procedures are updated to align with the RT‐1523F LRU specification and CNR PRD as it appears inconsistent. Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that the FAT in the RT‐1523F LRU specification should be re‐used as that document takes precedence. Please confirm.

Please refer to updated paragraphs in Attachment 0001, PRD. Of special note is PRD paragraph

1.5.2 that now clarifies: "Contractor‐led portion of FAT includes inspection as detailed in the SINCGARS 1523F specification paragraph 4.4."

45 Attach 5 / FAT 1.1

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that that the FAT should validate that the RT will operate within the strict SINCGARS BW, Tx Output Power and Spectral Mask levels called for in the RT‐1523F LRU specification. Please confirm. Correct.

46 Attach 5 / FAT 1.2

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that that the FAT should validate that the RT will operate within the strict receive sensitivity levels called for in the RT‐1523F LRU specification. Please confirm. Correct.

47 Attach 5 / FAT 1.3

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that that the FAT should validate that the RT will operate within the all SINCGARS Modes, including 600 bps, called for in the RT‐1523F LRU specification. Please confirm.

Not Correct.

The 600 bps data rate is not a Threshold at this time. This is now detailed in PRD paragraph 3.8 as an exception.

48 Attach 5 / FAT 1.4

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that that the FAT should validate that the RT will operate within the all SINCGARS Modes (including RBCI, UNSA, Time Delay, 2‐wire/6‐wire, etc.) called for in the RT‐1523F LRU specification. Please confirm.

Not Correct.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to add paragraph 3.8 and sub paragraphs for clarifications and deviations from the RT‐1523F specification. PM TR considers Universal Net Situational Awareness (UNSA) to be closely related to RBCI and not a Threshold at this time. The 2‐ wire/6‐wire specifications are valid, but do not extend to control over another type of CNR.

49 Attach 5 / FAT 1.4.1

The FAT calls out that "Test cables and RETRANS cables, if different from standard cables used by the RT‐1523F, are expected to be provided by the Contractor".

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that the radio should utilize the existing RT‐1523F accessories and cables. Please confirm.

The Government accepts that the offeror's solution may include updated interfaces or physically relocated connections that make reuse of the legacy cable impractical, as it may be too short or too long and could become a snag hazard.

50 Attach 5 / FAT 1.4.6

Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1 and the SOW, it is understood that that the FAT in the RT‐1523F LRU specification would be used to properly validate that the RT will operate Patriot mode within the strict timing constraints of the existing Patriot systems. In particular, that the Patriot data mode meets the three (3) critical timing parameters: TPTT‐DDCO, TDTT, and TRT? Please confirm. Correct.

51 Pricing Matrix N/A

Based on the statement in the SOW 1.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to use the existing CNR Installation Kits for mounting on Army Vehicles which would include interoperability with the existing SINCGARS ECDU and VRCU accessories. Respectfully request the removal of the CLINs for providing new Remote and Mounted HMIs and updating the requirements in the PRD to include interoperability with the existing ECDU and VRCU.

The legacy Radio Remote HMI specifications are not available for release; therefore, an alternative may be proposed.

Please refer to paragraphs 3.8, 3.5.2, and 3.5.3 of Attachment 0001, PRD.

52 Pricing Matrix N/A In order to appropriately provide a price for the "Installation Kit", please clarify which components must be included in the "Installation Kit".

Please see Attachment 0001, PRD, paragraph 3.3.3. The Installation Kit is an adapter, if required, and consists of items required to fit/mount/secure the proposed RT solution into the space provided on the legacy VAA and adapt connectors, etc. See also PRD paragraph 3.1.1.3.1.

This is the kit for mounting the CNR and NOT meant to describe a vehicle Install Kit.

53 SOW 4.6

The INC within the AM‐7238E performs all of the necessary Network packet handling for the SINCGARS VRC systems. Therefore, the cyber boundary would be drawn to include the VAA. It is not expected that the existing SINCGARS VAA Networking Packet handling SW would meet modern cyber protection requirements for RMF. Please confirm that the vendor is only responsible for the impacts of the RT provided and any issues due to the existing system would be waived. Correct.

54 Attach 14 / SecA.2.c.(i)(1)(b)

Please confirm the Government is requesting License Rights/Technical Data Assertions to support organic sustainment and future full and open competition/third party procurement for the purposes of organic sustainment only.

The intent of requesting license rights and data/software rights is to sustain fielded product through the establishment of core logistic capability in order to comply with requirements established in Title 10 U.S. Code 2464. This is evidenced by the fact that the Government is requesting Level III Technical Data Package (TDP) IAW CDRL C001 and MIL‐STD‐31000B and the fact that these drawings will be Limited Design Disclosure Models. The Government desires the ability to organically sustain the radio solution; however, if the Government is unable to sustain organically, it may be necessary to conduct a full and open competition in order to satisfy the Government's sustainment requirements.

55 Attach 14 / SecA.2.c.(ii)(2)(c)

Respectfully request the following support for direct labor rates be added: a summary of hours and dollars by Labor Bid Code which will provide the labor rates used, with detail and verification provided through live sessions if requested. After careful consideration, this request is denied.

56 Solicitation B‐4 Please provide the total maximum ceiling amount of this contract. The total maximum ceiling amount of this contract is yet to be determined.

57 Pricing Matrix N/A If a component is not required for a Vendor solution to be compliant, how should it be handled in the Pricing Spreadsheet? Should it be left blank?

The instructions tab on Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, has been updated:

"8. If a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) is not required for an offeror's unique solution, which is compliant with the Government's requirement, then the CLIN shall be left blank (not $0.00) in the Pricing Spreadsheet. Offerors shall provide additional information/rationale for the exclusion of these items in Column W on tabs 2‐A and 2‐B.”

58 Attach 14 / SecA.2.c.(i)(1)(b)

Section L requires a complete license rights proposal outlining terms and conditions and which may also include cost/price to the Government. Where should the proposal and associated cost/price be included?

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated. The offeror shall include the price of license data rights and background patent rights on an NSP basis tied to the CLIN/deliverable associated with the license.

59 Attach 14 / SecA.3.a)

For the purposes of calculating the small business participation percentages, please provide clarification specific to what value should be utilized as the Total Contract Value for all offerors.

The total contract value for proposal purposes is offeror specific. The offerors should utilize the value in Attachment 0007, Tab "3. TOTAL PRICE," Cell B8.

60 Attachment 10Section 5 Please confirm that a Commercial Subcontracting Plan is acceptable to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219‐9 and Attachment 10, Section 5

Correct.

In accordance with FAR 52.219‐9 and DFARS 252.219‐7003, a Commercial Subcontracting Plan is acceptable to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219‐9 and Attachment 10, Section 5.

61 RFP / SF 33 Section L

Please remove reference to DFARS 252.234‐7003, as the Government did not include the necessary CSDR plan or Tables required therefore we understand it to be not applicable.

The solicitation has been updated to include the CSDR Plan (DD 2794) and Resource Distribution Table as Attachments 15 and 16 respectively.

62 RFP / SF 33 Section L

Specific to CDRLS A003, A004, J003, and J008 ‐ J011, CSD reports are not required under the following conditions: procurement of commercial systems or for non‐ commercial systems bought under competitively awarded, firm fixed‐price contracts, as long as competitive conditions continue to exist. As this is planned to be a multiple award IDIQ it is anticipated the CSDR CDRLS are not required and the USG will seek a waiver appropriately. CSD reports are required.

63 PRD 3.1.5.5.1

Can the Government provide the reference document called out in Section

3.1.5.5.1 of PRD (Survivability Criteria for the Abrams: 25 July 2011).

The reference document is Classified at the SECRET level, and is releasable based off of need to know. The Government considers need‐to‐know to be in conjunction with contract award. The Government will provide this document to awardee/contract holders as soon as possible after award in preparation for the First Article Test (FAT). This part of the FAT will be the last portion validated. For the proposal, the offeror's tentative plan to meet this criteria will be evaluated.

64 RFP / SF 33 Section I Please remove DFARS 252.204‐7021 (CMMC) as this program is not approved by OUSD(A&S) in accordance with the 204.7503(a)? The clause at DFARS 252.204‐7021 has been removed.

65 RFP / SF 33 N/A

If CMMC is required, what level of CMMC certificate shall be required for this contract? The clause at DFARS 252.204‐7021 has been removed.

66 Pricing Matrix N/A There is a discrepancy between Solicitation Schedule B and the Pricing Matrix with respect to CLIN 1201AA. Section B states CPFF and the Pricing Matrix states FFP.

Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, has been updated to reflect CLINs 1201AA and 6201AA as CPFF CLINs, in alignment with Section B of the Solicitation.

67 Attach 14 / SecD In a best value evaluation scenario how is the cost proposed for license rights addressed in the cost/price proposal evaluation.

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated. The offeror shall include the price of license data rights and background patent rights on an NSP basis tied to the CLIN associated with the deliverable.

68 Attach 12 N/A

In order to achieve the Proposed Programmatic Schedule, does the program anticipate issuing NSA Client Validation Letters or sponsoring NSA certification to interested Vendors prior to Award to accommodate the NSA certification process?

The Commercial COMSEC Evaluation Program (CCEP) is available to vendors to apply for NSA High Assurance certification support. Information about the program can be found here:

https://apps.nsa.gov/iaarchive/programs/industry‐partnership/commercial‐comsec‐ evaluation.cfm.

The Government sponsor for the CNR offerors to get through the Front Door at NSA is the Joint Tactical Networking Center (JTNC); JTNC POC is William Brickner (william.j.brickner@navy.mil).

PdM WF and PM TR will not guarantee that NSA will accept your application or provide certification by any date. The NSA is responsible for the certification process and the Army will remain out of this process until contract award.

69 Attach 12 N/A

Can the Government specify at what level it plans to accredidate the system under the Risk Management Framework (RMF) Process, Ex. H/H/H, so that the effort to support can be properly scoped?

The Government plans to accredidate the system under the Risk Management Framework (RMF) Process as Mod/Mod/Mod.

70 Exhibit L Specification

Does the program intend to request specifications down to the board level to allow for Organic Level 3 maintenance similar to how the RT‐1523F is maintained today?

Correct.

The Government intends to sustain CNR the same as the current radio, as detailed in Attachment 0008, Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP).

71 RFP General

Additional information is requested to properly scope the test plan, execution, and reporting costs. The PRD Section 1.2 calls for platform integration into the VRC‐88F, VRC‐89F, VRC‐90F, VRC‐91F, and VRC‐92F and dismount system.

EMI/EMC, Environmental, and NSA/Tempest tests are performed at the System level and therefore duplicated for each requested system to be evaluated. What systems does the program request the Vendors perform testing and provide System Test Reports for?

EMI/EMC, Environmental, and NSA/Tempest tests are to be performed at the System level of the VRC‐92F and also in dismounted configuration. This represents the highest transmit power for configurations.

72 Section L / M General Are 11 x 17 inch foldouts allowed in the Technical Volume for graphics?

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to clarify that all pages shall be in standard letter size (8.5 x 11 inches).

73 Section L A.1.d.

Can the Government provide an example of the date format for file names, which indicate "MMDDYYY". For example, should the date read "0809021"?

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to clarify the date format for file names. This has been updated to "MMDDYYYY". For example, August 9th, 2021 would be annotated as 08092021.

74 RFP Section L 2.a Can the Government confirm it is acceptable to use 11x17 pages and that they count as one page

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to clarify that all pages shall be in standard letter size (8.5 x 11 inches).

75 Attachment 07Pricing Tabs

TEP Spread sheet totaling seems to have errors – The total column T386 does not add the first two years (G386, and J386), on both Years 1‐5 and Years 6‐10. Was that intentional or does it need to be corrected? Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, has been updated to correct the error in the formula.

76 Attachment 03Section 3.2 and 3.3

There are seven Objective Requirements listed in 3.2 and 3.3 but the Government only lists that as a Threshold in the compliance matrix. Can the Government correct the matrix and clarify?

The Threshold is correct as written and is aligned with expectations of other SDRs in the portfolio.

To be clear, offerors shall address Threshold requirements.

77 RFP Section L A.2.c.(i)1.(b), License Rights

The RFP states that the Offeror shall describe all deliverables with sufficient rights to support operation, maintenance, installation, and training; modernization;

sustainment; and future full and open competition. Please clarify if the Government’s reference to full and open competition refers to a competition for sustainment of the offeror’s solution, or alternatively, if the Government is looking for rights to conduct a full and open competition to procure the offeror’s radio solution.

The intent of requesting license rights and data/software rights is to sustain fielded product through the establishment of core logistic capability in order to comply with requirements established in Title 10 U.S. Code 2464. This is evidenced by the fact that the Government is requesting Level III Technical Data Package (TDP) IAW CDRL C001 and MIL‐STD‐31000B and the fact that these drawings will be Limited Design Disclosure Models. The Government desires the ability to organically sustain the radio solution; however, if the Government is unable to sustain organically, it may be necessary to conduct a full and open competition in order to satisfy the Government's sustainment requirements.

78 Solicitation H.6.4

The RFP states that future competitive order RFPs tradeoffs may include the necessary hardware and software rights to allow the Government to organically sustain the RT sets and/or competitively procure hardware and services (e.g., operation, maintenance and repair) from third parties. Please clarify if the Government’s plans to competitively procure hardware and services is limited to the sustainment of the offeror’s solution, or is the Government looking for rights to conduct a full and open competition to procure the offeror’s radio solution.

The intent of requesting license rights and data/software rights is to sustain fielded product through the establishment of core logistic capability in order to comply with requirements established in Title 10 U.S. Code 2464. This is evidenced by the fact that the Government is requesting Level III Technical Data Package (TDP) IAW CDRL C001 and MIL‐STD‐31000B and the fact that these drawings will be Limited Design Disclosure Models. The Government desires the ability to organically sustain the radio solution; however, if the Government is unable to sustain organically, it may be necessary to conduct a full and open competition in order to satisfy the Government's sustainment requirements.

79 Solicitation I.104, DFAR 252.204‐7021

This DFAR should be deleted as only solicitations that have been approved by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense should include a CMMC requirement. It is the Contractor’s understanding that only two pilot solicitations have been approved by OUSD to date. The clause at DFARS 252.204‐7021 has been removed.

80 RFP Section L A.2.c.(i)1.(b), License Rights

The RFP requires that the offeror include a License Rights proposal as part of the Technical Volume that lists all cost/price to the government to purchase the TDP, royalties, etc. The offeror is further instructed to provide pricing for each data deliverable and to provide an itemized list of these costs/prices in the Volume II, Section II – Cost Narrative Proposal. Please confirm that all costs/prices associated with License Rights are to be detailed in both the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal Narrative.

The cost/prices associated with License Rights shall only be included in the Cost Narrative section of the proposal. Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to reflect that the cost for License Rights shall be captured in the Cost Narrative proposal. The offeror shall include the price of license data rights and background patent rights on an NSP basis tied to the CLIN associated with the deliverable.

Please also confirm that Volume II, Cost/Price, Section 1 – Price Spreadsheet is to include a single price per CDRL to include both the cost to develop the CDRL and where applicable the license rights price associated with the CDRL.

Correct.

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated. The offeror shall include the price of license data rights and background patent rights on an NSP basis tied to the CLIN associated with the deliverable.

82 Attachment 07Pricing Tabs

Is it correct to assume that one time submission CDRLs should only have a price in the first year (or the year they are submitted) and no pricing in all the other option years even though the Pricing Sheet has boxes to be filled in for all 10 years?

The Government requires offerors to propose a price for each CDRL in each of the specified years in Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet.

83 RFP Section L 2.c.(1).(b)

We assume the maturity of the manufacturing is a critical element of risk for the Government. However, the current RFP does not request any substantial information on the manufacturing plan to be included in the proposal. Will the Government consider adding the requirement for a Manufacturing Plan Appendix or MRL assessment be provided with the proposal?

The solicitation addresses MRL as follows:

"The Offeror shall identify the degree of maturity of its CNR configuration and sub‐system components by providing documented test reports (preferably performed by 3rd party independent parties) and analyses to prove the Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of its offering that supports delivery of First Article hardware."

84 Program SchedFAT Quantity

Can the Government clarify whether 80 First Article Units are due from each awardee or is it 80 total with only 40 being required from each awardee with the assumption of two awards? The Government anticipates 80 First Article Units from each vendor.

85 RFP Section L L.2.c

Since several of the submission files are excel spreadsheets, did the Government actually mean “each volume” rather than “each file”… shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and Narrative discussion?

Correct.

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to reference volume instead of file.

86 RFP Section L L.1.c.d Is it correct to assume that cover sheets, Tables of Content, and Acronym lists are excluded from the page limits?

Correct.

Cover Sheets, Tables of Contents, and Acronym lists are excluded from the page limits. Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to include this information.

87 SOW 9.7 – Visit Auth Should the reference to JPAS be changed to Defense Information System for Security (DISS) since JPAS sunset March 31st?

Correct.

Attachment 0002, Statement of Work, has been updated to reflect this change.

88 PRD 3.1.1.6.10 line 334

Please clarify if the “legacy audio specification” refers to the connector to be used to support serial data transfers (ex. RS‐232 serial communications) to devices such as Taclink and Ultralink. If there are additional protocols required other that serial communications, please provide document that defines the “legacy audio specifications for the SINCGARS RT‐1523” Alternatively, can the government change the requirement text to read ”...support Fires Missions by following the legacy audio connector specifications for the SINCGARS RT‐1523 radio...”

Yes, the legacy audio specification includes reference to the connector used to support serial data transfers.

Yes, there are additional protocols required: RS‐232, DS‐101, audio, etc.

After careful consideration, the request to update the PRD is denied. Adaptors fitted on the ends of legacy Fires Cables will be considered adequate.

89 PRD 3.1.5.5.1 line 442 Can the government provide secret document referenced in the requirement for Nuclear Survivability?

The reference document is Classified at the SECRET level, and is releasable based off of need to know. The Government considers need‐to‐know to be in conjunction with contract award. The Government will provide this document to awardee/contract holders as soon as possible after award in preparation for the First Article Test. This part of the FAT will be the last portion validated. For the proposal, the offeror's tentative plan to meet this criteria will be evaluated.

90 Attachment 7 Tab GFM Historical Data

The GFM suggested pricing list does not seem to have the clarity needed to properly asses a correct value. Does the cost presented for the “Chassis” A3 include the connectors and switches? What or which “circuit cards” are assumed to be included in cost for A5, “Circuit Card, Power Supply?”

No, the cost presented for the chassis does not include the connectors and switches.

The circuit card identified is for the power supply circuit card only.

The solicitation states that "the Offeror shall identify the GFM that will be used and provide the assessment and methodology used to determine the value, on an individual component level, of the GFM per RT delivered to the Government."

The Government has identified that three components of the RT‐1523s have the highest likelihood of reuse by a potential vendor: the physical body of the RT (or ‘chassis’), the front key panel display, and the power supply circuit card. The Government has provided historical data stating the estimated cost and re‐use rate for these three components.

91 Attachment 7 Tab GFM Historical Data

There are many other parts unaccounted for in the list of the 3 GFM Items Historical data. The Government originally estimated the use of GFM to be $2250.

It does not drive a fair competition to allow the offeror to decide on their own what the value should be. Clearly, the offeror will justify a very low value to lower their price. Will the Government please identify all pieces of the 1523 that can be re‐used and assign a reasonable value to each piece that must be used?

The solicitation states that "the Offeror shall identify the GFM that will be used and provide the assessment and methodology used to determine the value, on an individual component level , of the GFM per RT delivered to the Government."

Further, the solicitation states "If the Offeror proposed to use GFM, the Offeror’s proposed approach to determining the GFM value, as well as the GFM value, will be assessed for reasonableness. If the proposed GFM value is deemed unreasonable, the Offeror may be ineligible for award."

The Government has identified that three components of the RT‐1523s have the highest likelihood of reuse by a potential vendor: the physical body of the RT (or ‘chassis’), the front key panel display, and the power supply circuit card. The Government has provided historical data stating the estimated cost and re‐use rate for these three components.

The RFP references a requirement for the DFARS 252.204‐7021 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements. Based on the fact that this process has not been fully implemented, can the Government please remove this requirement from the RFP? The clause at DFARS 252.204‐7021 has been removed.

The RFP references a requirement for an ISO certification. Can the Government please further define the specific type of ISO certification required for this effort?

The clause at FAR 52.246‐11 has been updated to include the following certifications:

ISO 9001‐ International Standards Organization 9001‐2015 or AS9100 Society of Automotive Engineers ‐Aerospace Standard AS9100 Rev D.

The RFP states each proposal volume shall be submitted electronically only through the DoD SAFE file exchange site (https://safe.apps.mil/). Would the government please clarify when the invitation request code will be issued?

Upon request to the Contracting Officer (bradley.a.phillips14.civ@mail.mil) and Contract Specialist (lee.alexis.civ@mail.mil), a request code will be sent. Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated.

Special notation indicates “File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be uploaded separately in their native format (i.e., .doc, .docx, .xls, .pdf).” Would the govt permit Word docs to be converted to pdf via Microsoft to preserve integrity of content?

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to remove the term native format.

Yes, the Government permits Microsoft Word documents to be converted to PDF. Appropriate file formats are listed in Attachment 0014.

CLIN 1001AA

CLIN 1001AD

CLIN 1001AE

CLIN 1101AB

CLIN Listings, PRD, and SOW

The current PRD and SOW do not specifically define the content of CLINS 1001AA, AD, AE, 1011AA, and 1011AB. Section 1.2 of the SOW discusses Dismounted Radio Sets and Mounted Radio Sets. Is it correct to assume that CLINs 1001AA, AD, and AE are the Dismounted Radio Set and that CLIN 1011AB is the Vehicle Adapter that when combined with a Radio Set meets all of the requirements of the Mounted Radio Set in the PRD?

Yes, CLINs 1001AA, AD, and AE are the Dismounted Radio Set CLINs are for the RT. Please reference Section B of the Solicitation Document (W15P7T‐21‐R‐0009) which provides SOW and PRD references for all CLINs.

CLIN 1101AA, Installation Kit, is the hardware required for an RT that does not necessitate additional form/fit adapter between the legacy VAA and the CNR. This is the hardware necessary to secure/interface the RT; this is not a vehicle installation kit.

CLIN 1101AB, Vehicle Adapter, is the hardware required for an RT that does necessitate additional form/fit adapter between the legacy VAA and the CNR.

97 CLIN 1101AA CLIN Listings, PRD, and SOW

Can the Government clarify what is supposed to be included in CLIN 1011AA Installation Kit and if the offeror does not need to provide this, can this be bid as $0?

CLIN 1101AA, Installation Kit, consists of items required to fit/mount/secure the proposed RT solution into the space provided on the legacy adaptor, adapt connectors, shield, or assist in cooling (if necessary).

The instructions tab on Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, has been updated to include the following:

"8. If a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) is not required for an offeror's unique solution, which is compliant with the Government's requirement, then the CLIN shall be left blank (not $0.00) in the Pricing Spreadsheet. Offerors shall provide additional information/rationale for the exclusion of these items in Column W on tabs 2‐A and 2‐B.”

98 CLIN 1001AA Section 3.2

In order to resolve requirements that should not have to be met with a dismounted radio and allow Handheld Dismounted solutions without the Vehicle Adapter, it is recommended that the Government change section 3.2 first bullet FROM “The capabilities required by PRD paragraph 3.1, including all sub‐ paragraphs…. TO “The capabilities required by PRD paragraph 3.1, including all sub‐ paragraphs except:

3.1.1.6.7 (T) Shall provide a serial connection to the INC device located in the Vehicle adapter.

3.1.1.6.8 (T) Shall support serial interfaces with the RS‐422 and RS‐423 interfaces.

3.1.1.6.9 (T) SNAP Interface. Shall provide an interface to the Steerable Null Antenna Processor (SNAP) for radio control of the Frequency Hopping Multiplexer (FHMUX) and accept BIT information from the INC and the FHMUX. Overview is found in TM 11‐5820‐332 890‐10‐8.

Attachment 0001, PRD, has been updated to incorporate this change.

Pricing

Spreadsheet Tab 2‐A / 2‐B

The following discrepancy was identified in the Pricing Spreadsheet. The Offeror assumes that the TEP formula for tabs 2‐A and 2‐B in the Pricing Spreadsheet are in error and that the correct calculation for both tabs should be G386+J386+M386+P386+S386. Can the Government please confirm and update accordingly? Attachment 0007, CNR Pricing Spreadsheet, has been updated to correct the error in the formula.

Solicitation/ Pricing

Spreadsheet

CLIN 1206AJ

‐ Security

The following discrepancy was identified between the Solicitation and Pricing Spreadsheet. The Offeror assumes CLIN 1206AJ is NSP as indicated on the Pricing Spreadsheet and not priced (FFP) as shown on the Solicitation. Please confirm.

Correct.

CLIN 1206AJ is NSP.

101 SOW 4.4.2.4

The following is a discrepancy identified between the PRD and SOW. Based on the statement in the PRD 2.1, it is understood that Vendors are required to comply with the RT‐1523F External Control Interface (ECI) interface Control document (ICD) in A3272678 versus the incompatible provisioning tools specified in SOW

4.4.2.4. Please confirm.

Not Correct.

There is no incompatibility ‐ only a name change to the platform as the ACES application now resides on the RAP‐TR machine.

The ATOM application on the RAP‐TR machine is, at this time, a pass‐through planner for SINCGARS tactical networks. Those plans that pass through RAP‐TR are then loaded on non‐CNR radios.

Compatibility for CNR with ATOM and RAP‐TR means that unique set up for CNR must be available for the RAP‐TR to configure the Radio Network Plan. This ensures that the network plan places both CNR radios and non‐CNR radios in a single, compatible network.

102 Solicitation Section I

The following discrepancy was identified in the Solicitation. The Offeror assumes that DFARS 252.209‐7009 is not applicable, and therefore be removed, as this contract is not for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance. Please confirm.

Correct.

The clause at DFARS 252.209‐7009 has been removed from the solicitation.

Pricing

Spreadsheet CPFF Tab

The following discrepancy was identified in the Pricing Spreadsheet. The Offeror assumes that the CPFF table may be modified to include fringe, COM, and otherwise align with Offeror’s calculation methodology? Please confirm.

Yes the table may be modified to include an Offeror’s applicable indirects. LCATs and hours may not be adjusted.

In addition, the instructions tab clearly states the following:

The Offeror shall propose the CPFF effort in accordance with the Instructions in Section L of the RFP and provide all supporting documents as attachments to the Pricing Proposal.

Pricing

Spreadsheet CPFF Tab

The following discrepancy was identified in the Pricing Spreadsheet. There are only two labor categories listed on the CPFF tab. Offeror assumes that these labor categories are for evaluation purposes only and that actual labor categories and rates will be proposed at the order level. Please confirm.

Correct.

The CPFF tab is for evaluation purposes only as actual labor categories and rates will be proposed by contract holders at the order level.

Attachment 14 ‐ Sections L and M

As part of the technical proposal, offerors are required to provide a Data/SoftwareRights Assertions table. Will the Data Rights Assertions table be excluded from the 75‐page limit for the Technical Volume?

Attachment 0014, Section L and Section M, has been updated to provide instructions that Offeror provided Data/Software Rights Assertions shall be presented to the Government as an attachment to the Technical Proposal. This will not count against the 75 page limitation.

Attachment 0013 – Past Performance Questionnair e Part III

Attachment 0013 – Past Performance Questionnaire, PART III, Return Information states that “the entire questionnaire shall be completed and submitted as part of their proposal submission.” Typically, customer questionnaires are emailed directly from the offeror’s customers to the Contracting Officer in order to protect the confidentiality of the evaluator’s comments. Please clarify if an offeror is to instruct our customers to return the completed questionnaires to the offeror or directly to ACC. Attachment 0013, Past Performance Questionnaire, has been updated to clarify that completed

Past Performance Questionnaires are to be sent to ACC upon completion.