W31P4Q-17-R-0041_Sentinel_A4_Question_Comment_Matrix_18_Apr_18.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted Apr 18, 2017

Attached to: SENTINEL A4
Solicitation number: W31P4Q-17-R-0041
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command

About this file

From the source

Questions and Answers Update for 18 April 2017

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Sentinel_A4_Draft_RFP_QAs_21_MARCH_2017.pdf	PDF	Mar 21, 2017
Sentinel_A4_Draft_RFP_QAs_10_MARCH_2017.pdf	PDF	Mar 10, 2017
Attachment_0004-_Sentinel_A4_Draft_RFP_Instructions_to_Respondents_09_Feb_17.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0005-_Sentinel_A4_Section_L_24_Jan.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0003-_DRAFT_12_A4_DSL_28_NOV_2016.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0001-_Sentinel_A4_SOW_13_Jan__17.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0013-_AMC-LEVEL_PROTEST_PROGRAM.pdf	PDF	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0002-APPROVED_A4_CDRLS_14_DEC_2016.pdf	PDF	Feb 9, 2017
W31P4Q17R0041_draft_RFP_WaterMarked-DRAFT.pdf	PDF	Feb 9, 2017
Attachment_0006-_Sentinel_A4_Section_M_13_Jan.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2017

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

	Document Name/ Version	Para #	Page #	Line#	Question Submitted	Government Response
	Section L	L.8.3.1	6	Second Paragraph	Additional information is needed to understand and assess the use of GFP to comply with the Sentinel A4 specification. Please provide the test report of the design verification test of the Sentinel A3 and the test reports of the design verification tests of the Sentinel A3 Subsystems, particularly the Signal and Data Processor, Exciter/Receiver and the IFF Interrogator.	The Government is unable to provide design verification test reports on the Sentinel A3. Specifically for the Signal Data Processor, the new Sentinel A3 unit is only now at the Critical Design Review stage and has not undergone testing. The IFF system will also undergo upgrade. Please see the response to the next question.
	Section M	M.3.1	3	b. SW Architecture	Additional information is required to evaluate the ability to leverage the use of the existing Signal and Data Processor. Information that describes the processing architecture including sizing, loading, latency and I/O bandwidth will be required. Additionally, at a minimum, the SW architecture design document will be needed to support antenna integration design concepts and cost estimating. Ultimately the source code will be required for complete integration and A4 product delivery. When will the Government be able to provide this level of information? When would the Government be able to provide the source code?	The Government understands the request for additional information; however, the only information that the Government can provide on the Signal Data Processor (SDP) is contained in the IDD. Much of the SDP documentation and source code include restrictions that prevent the Government from releasing them with the RFP. You will have to assess your ability to leverage the use of the existing SDP based on the information provided in the IDD. This is why the SDP is "optional". Based on the comments received to the Draft RFP, the Government is re-visiting the SDP IDD to determine if further clarity can be provided. However, if you decide to use the SDP, you assume the risk of ensuring that the SDP, as-is or modified by you, works within your design and that your design meets all the requirements of the system performance specification. For "optional" GFP, the Government will only be responsible for ensuring that the IDD is correct. For the GFP Government-owned CTC software, which is "mandatory", the Government will work with the selected contractor to integrate the CTC computer card and software into the system, as was done on the current Sentinel system. The Government will not provide the CTC source code to the contractor.as done on the current Sentinel system. The Government will not provide the CTC source code to the contractor.
	SOW	General			How will the contractor be expected to address latent firmware/software issues ('bugs') in the re‐used GFE source code?	The Government-furnished property (GFP) designated as "mandatory" in the IDD will be suitable for contract performance. Should the contractor identify any concerns with the GFP, the contactor will notify the Government in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 and we will work with you to address the concerns. For GFP listed as "optional", the contractor assumes the risk of ensuring that the GFP works within its design. The Government is only responsible for ensuring that the GFP meets the IDD. The contractor is totally responsible for system performance. The Governement will break the GFP list into two parts: mandatory and optional. An appropriate H-clause will specify Government responsibility in GFP suitability for use.
	SOW	General			How will reuse of proprietary artifacts be addressed?	If the question concerns the offeror's use of its proprietary items in its proposed design, the Government will evaluate that in accordance with the open systems architecture approach per M.3.1, sub-factor 1, part C. If the question concerns using current A3 items that may be proprietary or of restricted use, the Government cannot guarantee that such items can be made available for use or incorporation into your design.
	Section L	L.8.3.1	6	Fourth Paragraph	Please provide the Benchmark+ simulation tool along with computer configuration requirements and the licensing required for use.	The Government intends to discuss this area during the one-on-one sessions. The Government is in the process of developing the Benchmark+ simulation and it is not available at this time. Should the tool not be ready in time, the Government is assessing alternatives to using this approach. As a minimum, the Government intends to provide operational scenarios for the offerors to use to show how their proposed concept meets the performance requirements contained in the RFP. The Government welcomes industry input to develop a fair and precise method to evaluate the proposals. The Government desires more than a "physics-based" approach in defining performance.
	Section L	L8.3.1	6		The reference to "improved engagement support capabilities against cruise missile and unmanned aerial system threats." implies possibility of ongoing changes. Recommend citing requirement to meet engagement support capabilities against cruise missile and unmanned aerial system threats as defined in the A4 specification.	The Government will change the text as follows: "The proposal shall substantiate the offeror’s approach, using tables, charts, Blake charts, plots, and supporting data for derived solutions, for meeting the requirements outlined in the Sentinel A4 System Performance Specification."
	Section L	L8.3.2	7	5	Our interpretation of variation mechanisms relates to the ability of the software to update values of variables to handle expected configuration updates during development. Please confirm or correct this understanding.	The Government's intent is for the offeror to show how its software architecture manages variability given multiple missions, functions, and threats while isolating critical program information and critical technologies. The offeror should also show how its software architecture supports future change, such as going to a Foreign Military Sales variant of the radar. Also reference the software architecture evaluation discussion in Section M.3.1.
	Section L	L8.3.5	10		This IMS section requires submittal of IMS in MS Project and PDF format, but the submittal instructions (L5, p. 4) only states MS Project. Please clarify if both formats are required.	Submit your IMS as a MS Project file and in PDF so that it can be accessed on computers without MS Project installed. Your IMS must be in MS Project; other scheduling software is not acceptable. The Government will clarify the text in Section L5.
	Section L	L.8.4.1	10		Please clarify plausible evidence of ownership costs. What is considered plausible evidence? What elements are included in total ownership? For example, is the contractor responsible for ownership costs of GFP? If yes, then please provide ownership costs of GFP.	The intent of this statement, which the Government will clarify in the next draft RFP, is to have the offeror provide information to show that not only is the current contract being bid is affordable, but that the system can be cost-effectively manufactured and maintained in follow-on contracts. The Government cannot commit to a design if the design cannot be produced, fielded, and maintained in a cost-effective way. The Government is interested in unit production costs, fielding and training costs, yearly maintainability costs, and the supporting rationale justifying these costs.
	Section L	L11	19		In order to aid review of cost data, recommend that the government provide a template for the cost inputs.	The Government will consider this and make changes in the next draft RFP.
	Section L	L.11.6	23		The CLIN numbers in L 11.6 a. do not match with CLIN structure cited in L 11.4. Please identify which reference is the correct CLIN designation.	The table in L11.6 is incorrect. On the table the CLINs should read, from left to right, 0003, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011.
	Section L	L11.6 a.	23		This section cites travel budgets for evaluation. Please confirm that all bidders are required to use these estimates for travel CLINS.	All offerors are required to use the dollar values shown for proposal purposes only. The Government will finalize the actual travel CLINS prior to contract award.
	Section L	L1	1		Without a Management Volume, please recommended a preferred "volume" for the program management activities.	You should include program management activities and support to the program IPTs in your Basis of Estimate that is part of the cost volume. Also, your technical response will include a discussion of risk management and measures and metrics used to manage the program. You will also submit an IMS. If you wish to propose any unique management activities that affect your technical approach in a positive way, so that they may be considered a "strength" in the Government's evaluation, please discuss that in your technical volume.
	Section L	L8.3.1	6		Request description of "Full substantiation and supporting data".	Your proposal must be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but provide convincing objective rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. The Government will base its evaluation on the information that constitutes the offeror's proposal. You should include supporting evidence that your system design solution meets the requirements, is affordable, producible, and can be maintained. The winning proposal will clearly demonstrate that its proposed solution is superior to other alternatives that may be proposed.
	Section L	L8.3.2	7		Section L specifies "The offeror shall provide predicted software performance estimates." What specific areas of SW performance is being requested?	Your proposed software solution must support the radar operational requirements, with emphasis on the areas outlined in L8.3.1. These include electronic attack, sub-clutter visibility, non-cooperative target recognition, radar resource management, target processing, and improved engagement capabilities against the threat set (including low, slow, and small targets) in stressing environments. You should outline your proposed software solutions and substaintate your solutions with available performance data and predictions. These predictions can be based on (but not limited to) modeling and simulation, software or hardware in the loop testing, performance of software to be reused from other programs, or performance of similar software realized on other programs or in similar applications.
	Section L	L10	12		There is a requirement to include a) written consent from our major subcontractors to disclose their past performance to us and b) a letters of commitment from the major subcontractors for their past performance to be reviewed by the Government. Are the letters of commitment included in the 5 page limit or if they are separate?	The commitment letters are not part of the five page limit. We will clarify Section L.
	Section M	M3.1 a.	3		Please identify the evaluation criteria and weighting that will be used to identify the merit for achieving objective versus threshold requirements.	The Government intends to discuss this area during the one-on-one sessions. Currently, the Government is not using a Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) in the evaluation. However, the Government is considering it and desires industry input. As the current draft RFP is written, the Government may rate technical performance that exceeds objective requirements as "strengths" that may lead to a higher overall color rating (i.e., Purple (Good) or Blue (Outstanding)) for the proposal.
	Section M	M.3.1	5	d. System Security Engineering	Please confirm that the contractor is only responsible for system security of new design items, and not responsible for system security of any reused GFE subsystems.	The contractor is responsible for full system performance. Should the contractor identify any security concerns with the GFE, the contactor will notify the Government in accordance with FAR 52.245-1.
	Section M	M3.4 a.	10		Please quantify the use of cost realism regarding adjustment of cost factor. How will the Government take into account and evaluate cost baselines that are supported by Internal Research & Development (IRAD) and/or leverage of other program efforts and products? Will the cost baselines be adjusted to the Government’s evaluated costs regardless of those efforts?	The Government will assess the proposed Basis of Estimate (BOE) against the Independent Government Cost Estimate to determine cost realism. If a contractor is leveraging IRAD or other programs/products, the BOE should clearly reflect that and present evidence to fully justify the bid value. The Government will consider the proposed evidence to assess a lower than expected bid, to ensure that the cost is valid and that the offeror is not attempting to "buy-in" with a lower cost on a cost-plus effort. However, the Government wishes to caution the offerors that this is a standalone program, the success of which should not be dependent upon external sources beyond our control.
	Section M	M3.1	4		Could the Government elaborate on how risk will be evaluated for Sub‐Factor 1. and overall in the proposal?	The Source Selection Evaluation Board's Technical Team will evaluate your proposal against meeting the requirements contained in the RFP. They will perform a risk assessment of your proposed design solutions and assess the probability of successful performance. The team will determine an overall sub-factor "color rating" based on the Technical Factor Ratings table shown in M3.1 (page 6).
	Section I	Section I	17	I-66, I-67, I-68	Clauses 252.227-7020, 252.227-7022, and 252.227-7023 pertain to architectural engineering services. The scope of the contract does not include any facility development. Recommend removing these clauses.	The Government agrees that 252.227-7022, and 252.227-7023 pertain to architectural engineering services and will consider their removal. Clause 252.227-7020 pertains to Rights in Special Works. The Government will assess this clause for applicability to this contract. The Government intends to add Data Rights Clauses 252.227-7017 and 252.227-7028 that are not in the current draft RFP.
	Section I	Section I		52.227-3	The inclusion of this clause is contingent on anticipated delivery of commercial items. Does the Government anticipate delivery of commercial items under this contract?	The Government does not anticipate delivery of commercial items under this contract. The Government will review including this clause in the contract.
	Draft Contract	System Test and Evaluation	9	System Test and Evaluation	SOW Section 3.5.5 lists this obligation as an LRIP option, however, the crosswalk places this obligation within CLIN 0001 for A4 Development. Please clarify the applicable contract phase and CLIN for this scope. Recommend reorganizing SOW by contract phase.	SOW 3.5.5 does not become "active" until the Government exercises the LRIP options. Thus the SOW includes the LRIP qualifier. However, the work is acomplished in and charged against the Development CLIN 0001, not the LRIP CLIN. This was due to the Government's desire to separate CLIN 0001 and fund with Reasearch, Development, Test and Evaluation appropriations, and to separately fund the LRIP CLINs with Procurement appropriations. We will reevaluate this approach. Also see next two questions.
	Section L	L11.4	22		The CLIN structure cites CLIN 0001 as development, and it overlaps with FUE and the LRIP options. It is unclear which development activity overlaps with these phases. Recommend that development be completed before FUE and LRIP options, and that CLINS have independent scope.	Noted. Please see next question.
	SOW	All	All	All	The Statement of Work appears to be arranged by topic. The crosswalk provided in the Draft RFP Instructions helps to identify scope with phase, but still has overlap of scope and appears to have mapping error. In order to have consistent scope by each bidder for each CLIN, recommend that the Statement of Work be reorganized to explicitly cite the scope required for each contract phase.	The Government built the SOW in accordance with a MIL-STD-881 Work Breakdown Structure. This should aid in your proposal development and cost reporting. The Government will revisit the crosswalk approach and CLIN structure to better define what is required for each contract phase.
	SOW	3.1.3	2	3.1.3 Sentinel A4 Software	These sections of the SOW appear to be applicable to new software development. Please clarify what scope is required for new development versus reuse of the existing Signal and Data Processor.	The SOW requirements refer to all software that is developed, modified, or reused. The contractor is responsible for total system performance and to fully document the system software solutions.
		3.1.3.1
		3.1.3.2
		3.1.3.3
	SOW	3.3.7	8	3.3.7 Anti-Tamper	Please confirm that the contractor is only responsible to identify critical program information and Anti Tamper features of new design items, and not responsible to identify critical program information and Anti Tamper features of any reused GFE subsystems.	The contractor is responsible for full system performance. Should the contractor identify any CPI or Anti-Tamper concerns with the GFE, the contactor will notify the Government in accordance with FAR 52.245-1.
	SOW	3.3.14.3	18		Please provide additional environmental and operational requirements for Highly Accelerated Life Testing to assure that all bidders perform the same scope.	Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) is an Industry Standard. It varies from contractor to contractor. Each contractor should propose its method for HALT. The Government will then review to ensure that the testing is adequate. HALT is designed to show which components are the highest fail items and most probable order of failure, but not necessarily the reliability time. Additional requirements are not needed since we are determining failure order and frequency, but not time.
	SOW	1.2	1		In para 1.2, the SOW says the last 2 of 3 tasks are optional. Should it instead state they are tasks for the option, not optional tasks?	Correct. The Government will correct the SOW to state that these tasks are associated with contract options. They are not optional tasks.
	SOW	3.4.4.3	26		According to the CDRL, the contractor is being asked to quote a Software Transition Plan. But will the contractor expected to perform the actual transition? Does the customer plan to assume responsibility as the design authority for the Software?	The contractor will be responsible for transitioning the deliverable software to the Government. In almost all cases, the software will be part of the delivered end-item. The contractor is responsible for full system performance and design; the Government does not plan to assume responsibility as the design authority for the software.
	SOW	3.5	34		Who is the independent modeling and sim VV&A authority?	The Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will accredit any model used to support an evaluation.
	SOW	3.3.14.4	19		Will ESS testing be conducted against the full test envelope, or a subset (following an initial sample size)?	Testing will be in accordance with the Sentinel A4 Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). That would mean the full envelope for the first iteration. Proposing a sample with rationale for follow-up testing would be encouraged to save both money and time as the program progresses.
	SOW	General			Will the current training materials, IETMs and provisioning data be made available to contractors for modification and re‐use?	There are limited training materials on the Sentinel A3. Most are "delta" updates of the Sentinel A1 system materials. The Government does have the Sentinel IETMs. A majority of the current Sentinel system has not been provisioned, although some Logistics Product Data exists. The Government will provide the contractor what is available, but offerors should not assume that the materials are adequate to support modification or reuse.
	SOW	General			What information will be provided to enable all contractors to leverage the existing Sentinel Digital Simulation? Will training be provided?	The Government will provide the Simulation Requirements Document (SRD) for the existing Sentinel Digital Simulation (SDS) as GFI. This is a October 2014 document. The Government will not provide training.
	SOW	General			When will training be made available to all contractors on the mandatory re‐use items?	The Government intends to provide any necessary training that is jointly agreed to between the contractor and the Government when the Government delivers the GFP Sentinel A3 radars to the selected contractor following contract award. The Government will provide additional training if required on a case-by-case basis.
	GFP List	General			Will training be provided on all GFP? If so, what kind (i.e. maintenance, operations, etc.)? If so, when will it be provided?	See previous question.
	GFP List	General			Will engineering drawings and ICD's be made available for GFP at RFP?	The IDD and its reference documents contain all the interface information that the Government can release.
	GFP List	1	1		To better understand the GFP hardware components of the existing Sentinel, we would request a demo of the Sentinel A3 system as well as the ability to inspect the Sentinel A3 system	The Government will consider this request.
	Draft Contract	Section I	21	I-90 (e) (1)	52.216-10(e) (Incentive Fee) states that "In no event shall the fee be greater than 3% or less than 4% of the target cost." As written this window is not achievable. Please clarify if this was meant to state that the total fee shall not be greater than 3% above the target fee, nor less than 4% below the target fee.	The Clause 52.216-10 contained in the draft RFP has not been filled out. The numbering -1-, -2-, etc., just indicate the fields that will be filled in prior to contract award. Draft RFP Section L.11.6 in attachment 5 contains initial Government thoughts on the incentive fee structure for the cost-plus CLIN. However, it does not include any schedule and performance incentives. Final incentives for both the cost-plus and fixed-price parts of the contact are still to be determined and will depend on the overall risk associated with the chosen design.
	Draft Contract	Section B	5	CLIN 0005	Recommend that the government cite a time period for potential award of LRIP 2 Option, similar to that included for LRIP Option 1.	The timeframes cited in L11.4 is correct. The Government will correct Section B to reflect.
	Draft Contract	Section B	7	CLIN 0008	The Program Year for CLINs 0008, 0010, and 0011 cited in the draft model contract, W31P4Q-17-R-0041, do not track with time frame cited in the CLIN structure included in draft Section L 11.4. Please clarify or correct as necessary.	The timeframes cited in L11.4 is correct. The Government will correct Section B to reflect.
	IDD	3.7	19		The IDD requires the contractor to support the USG in certification activities required by the AIMS program office. Please define the specific scope required to support this activity. It is also recommended that this scope be specified in the Statement of Work.	The contractor is required to support the Government in platform flight test IFF certification to ensure proper integration of the IFF interrogator with the Sentinal A4 radar. This will require the contractor to support in a similar manner as it would to support other Government testing. The Government will clarify this in the SOW.
	IDD	3.7	19		Please provide the part number, specifications and ICD of the IFF antenna.	The contractor will select the IFF antenna design similiarly to the main antenna design as it may drive certain requirements with IFF antenna placement and capability. The contractor will design the IFF antenna and integrate it mechanically and electrically with the main radar antenna and the interrogator hardware (the Government will provide the integrator as mandatory GFP).
	IDD	3.2.6.1.1	56		Please provide the performance characteristics of REX J7 RF output, including spurious, carrier frequencies, instantaneous bandwidth, and phase noise.	The Government is assessing if this information is available for release in the RFP.
	IDD	3.2.6.2.1	63		Please provide the input performance characteristics of REX J6 RF including spurious, carrier frequencies, instantaneous bandwidth, noise figure (including ADC and self noise) third order intercept, and insertion phase.	The Government is assessing if this information is available for release in the RFP.
	IDD	3.2.6.1.1	57		REX J8 COHO Output is listed in the table but not shown in the diagram on page 52. Please update the diagram to include this output and provide the pinout and performance characteristics including frequency, and power level.	The J8 connector is a holdover from when the A/D was once located in the SDP and not the REX. Because the A/D has been moved to the REX, this interface is now internal to the REX. The Government will update this description. The J8 is not used (see Table 3.2.3-1 pg. 13 of App C).
	IDD				Please provide the specification for the North Finding System to be used for Sentinel A4.	The Government is assessing if this information is available for release in the RFP. This document is referenced in the IDD and the Government should have provided it.
	IDD	2.2	4		When will all the documents referenced in section 2.2 be made available in the proposal library?	The Government will ensure that the documents are included in the next draft RFP.
	IDD	3.2.1	12		Please provide details relative to the SBC currently hosting the IBCS interface and CTC software? Will source code be provided? What OS and processor platform is required to host the software?	The SBC is part of the new Sentinel A3 Signal Data Processor which is still being designed. The Government will work with the selected prime contractor to integrate the CTC software into your system and hardware solution. The Government will not provide source code. Use of the Sentinel A3 SBC hardware solution is optional, and in fact its use may not be possible given expected advances in electronics by the time Sentinel A4 fields.
	IDD	3.2.3	12		Please provide details of SBC hosting GFP CTCP.	See previous question.
	IDD	3.2.2	12		Since the A3 C2 interface must be reused in the A4, please provide details relative to the SBC currently hosting that software. Will source code be provided? What OS and processor platform is required to host the software?	See previous question.
	IDD	B.4.2	31		Is the FAAD interface required reuse SW? If so, will it be available as an unbundled module/modules.?	The FAAD interface is required. Government is planning to provide SW as modular executables.
	IDD	Fig B-10	34		From where does eRCT receive power to recharge its batteries or when mounted in the sensor?	There is an RCT cable which connects the RCT to the Sensor Interface unit (SIU). This cable contains both data and power (reference TM 9-1430-740-10 Sentinel Tech/Operator's Manual).
	System Spec	3.15.2			What is the design point for Number of, ERP, and Range of Stand‐off Barrage Noise Jamming described in Appendix A? ERP is shown as a range in Table 7‐8.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.15.3			What is the design point for land clutter? Section 8.1 defines multiple land clutter types.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.2			Receive operational bandwidth is extended in frequency. What are the requirements to be met over the receive operational bandwidth?	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.4.2			The elevation coverage specified in bullet #1 appears to be in conflict with the elevation coverage specified and discussed in bullets 2 and 3. Please clarify.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.4.2			Is the intent of requirement [168] to specify the ability to select an elevation search sector that can be positioned within the elevation limits specified in [168]?	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.5			Is the search acquisition based on the radar being cued or based on radar autonomous search over a volume?
If the latter, what is the required search volume for these requirements? Note 3.1.6.4.2 specifies track elevation coverage.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.5.7.1			What are the radar‐to‐weapon ranges for the POO target location error specified in 3.16.5.7.1?	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.5.7.1			What are the radar‐to‐impact ranges for the POI target location error specified in 3.16.5.7.1?	See classified response.
	System Spec	7.5.2			What does "azimuth" in Table 7‐8 indicate?	See classified response.
	System Spec	8.3.1			What is the value for the standard deviation of z in the equation for rain rate distribution?	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.5.1	16		Recommend that items from the GFP list that are included or reused in the A4 design be excluded from the Mean Time Between Failure Critical requirement of paragraph 3.5.1.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.15.3	24		Recommend deleting shall[129] of the System Specification. The rationale is that the previous requirement defines the clutter environment and what performance is required in the specified clutter environment. Sub-clutter visibility is a system dependent, derived requirement that should be left to the discretion of the radar supplier.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.5.7.1	30		Recommend adding a range qualifier for the POO and POI requirements of System Specification paragraph 3.16.5.7.1. We will make suggestions in a classified document.	See classified response.
	System Spec	3.16.5.7.1	30		Recommend adding a qualifier that the POI requirements can be degraded if the downleg portion of the trajectory is outside of the radar's search sector.	See classified response.
	System Spec	7.7	110-119		The RAM RCS values in paragraph 7.7 of the System Specification are smaller than expected; specifically 7.7.3 and 7.7.10. Please verify that these RCS values are correct for the selected threats and frequency.	See classified response.
	System Spec	N/A			Recommend that the Government add requirements to the System Specification for creating (input from user or generated from DTED data) and using a terrain mask.	See classified response.
	System Spec	N/A			Recommend that the Government add a requirement to the System Specification for inputting and using DTED data for the height correction of POO and POI.	See classified response.

Protected Information_x000D__x000D__x000D_

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.