Dismounted Common Controller RFWP Vendor QA Matrix.pdf

Solicitation Reference Questions Answers

1. Is there a specific driving factor(s) for the SIPRNet access requirement and the anticipated frequency of access throughout the project? And if so, what/how often?

The government does not require access to SIPRnet for submission of White Papers. However, see section

11.1.1 Evaluation Criteria as having the ability to

process SECRET information will be a factor.

Example could be access to performance/effective defeat range data of other systems that will be integrated with the dismounted common controller.

2. What work products (or types of work products) from the effort will be classified?

Example of work product data could be the performance/effective defeat range of other systems that will be integrated with the dismounted common controller.

3. Page four of the RFWP states that RCCTO will not sponsor an offer for SIPERNET access. Does this mean RCCTO will not sponsor individual accounts/tokens or circuits? A. Eg could a performer with an exisiting SIPRNET circuit request SIPRNET tokens employees working on the project? Could a performer with employees with existing SIPRNet tokens be sponsored for access to SIPRNet facilities or installation of a SIPRNet circuit?

Section updated as 'RCCTO will sponsor SIPRnet access/accounts/tokens for this effort'.

+B1:D8Request for White Papers: HMIF Dismounted Common Controller Vendors Q&A

4. What data can the performer expect to receive on the robots and payloads? In particular, what interface documentation will be provided?

Inter Operability Profiles (IOPs) will be provided at time of contract award to the selected Vendor.

5. The Project Description describes building on the prior hand-held controller efforts. Is there a list of specific prior reference efforts which we should draw from so that we understand what has been done to date and extract lessons learned?

Prior efforts include the Common Robotic System (Individual) or CRS-I, the Soldier Control Kit Common Software (Hardware Configuration Wearable / Tablet / Mounted) faciliated by DEVCOM GVSC , and the robotic controller facilitated by the DEVCOM AC/Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER).

RFWP, Section 4.0

1. Will the government consider extending the due date to 22 June 2024See RFWP Revision 1. An extension is granted to 1600 EST, 24 June 2024.

RWFP, Section 1.0

2. If the Offorer currently holds an FCL of SECRET, will the Government consider removing the SIPRNet requirement?

The SIPRNet requirement will not be waived.

RCCTO will sponsor SIPRnet access/accounts/tokens for this effort.

RWFP, Section 3.5

3. Will the Government provide latency performance data for its named GFE software (WMI and TAK)?

Yes. The latency performance data can be provided to the selected vendor after contract award

RWFP, Section 3.5, Hardware Suppo

4. When will the Government provide technical data related to P/N #60301250-01 (or V2 60301250-00)?

Intent is to provide the KDA CISCv3 card (P/N #60301250-01) as a Government Furnished Item to the selected vendor after contract award

1. Is FCL required for the award or can this effort be planned for the future without a specific timeline as it requires sponsorship?

A current Facilities Clearance Level (FCL) or a plan with defined timelines to achieve FCL status, is required for contract award

2. The mentioned "one common software package"/"dismounted common controller software", is it referring to WMI and TAK? Are there any preferences for the operating system, like Windows, Linux, or Android?

Correct. Reference was made on the WMI and TAK.

No preference on the operating system.

3. Can you explain 1E-08? Was it supposed to be IEC-61508? Typo corrected in RFWP Revision 1 as 1EC-61508

4. What is your definition of the differnce between engineering and qualification units?

The four (4) engineering units at month three (3) support an initial demo to the Government, the eight

(8) qualification units at the fifth (5) month after contract award will support contractor testing on the robotic platforms, Control Vehicles (AMPV & ISV), and unmanned ground and air payloads.

5. Can you share information about VST and its dimensions? How should it be integrated? Can the VST be replaced if there is a better solution?

USG Vehicle Safety Transponder (VST) should be utilized for the project. The architecture of the dismounted common controller will include an interface to the Emergency Stop (VST button)

6. Can you share information about RVMS? Is it software or hardware? How should it be integrated?

RVMS is an Adaptable Platform Management System (HW&SW) that enables assured control of a platform as well as provides independent monitoring and fault detection to robotic platforms to achieve the necessary performance and integrity for safety critical applications

Section 9.5.2 7. Section 9.5.2 mentions that Data Item Deliverables (DID) are included in the materials for the deadline of June 12. Is this a mistake?

Aren't these documents created after the award?

The objectives and key features as identified in Section 3.0 should be considered and met or exceeded in the CSOW. The CSOW should unambiguously outline the contractor’s proposed effort. The attached CSOW format should be adhered to and include all tasks, milestones, H/W & S/W deliverables, as well as Data Item Deliverables (DIDs). Please refer to Section

3.20 of the RFWP.

Section 3.8 & 3.9 Can you please clarify the requirements for screen size? One says the screen shall be 10” display size, and another says it must be no larger than 10” diagonal.

Screen size for the dismounted common controller unit design shall be 10 Inches diagonal.

Comments Matrix