DCGS-A_CD-1_Q&A_Part_1.pdf

Page/ Paragraph Number

Comment Answer / Comment

1 SF Form 1449 (page 9) and Section 8.0 (page 24)

The SF Form 1449 lists CDRL A003 as "Scientific and Technical Reports."

However, SOW Section 8.0 lists CDRL A003 as "Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan." Please clarify which is the correct

CDRL A003.

CDRL A003 DID's Main Title "Scientific and Technical Reports" and subtitle "OPSEC Plan is correct. The SF Form 1449 only list the DIDs main title "Scientific and Technical Reports but not the subtitle "OPSEC Plan".

Please see amended RFP.

2 Section L.2 (page 57) and Table A (page 58)

Table A instructs offerors to submit each Volume as a collection of individual files, each with their own file name. However, Section L.2 states that, "Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Summary Section, and the narrative discussion."

This suggests that each Volume’s contents can be indexed into a Table of Contents. This would not be possible if a Volume is comprised of multiple files, especially files of varying formats (e.g., .docx and .xlsx).

Please clarify the submission instructions for each Volume.

Each volume of the proposal shall contain a table of contents. If the document is formatted in either word or pdf, please include in the Table of Contents as one file.

If there are various other formats such as .xlsx, please include as an individual file.

3 Section L, Table A (page 58)

There appears to be a discrepancy between Table A’s list of files per volume, and the detailed explanation of the volumes:

• According to Table A, Volume I should contain only 5 files.

However, Section L.2.1 describes Volume I as having 6 files. The 6th file is titled “Data and Software Rights Assertions."

• According to Table A, Volume II should contain a file called “Data Assertions.”

However, Section L.2.2 does not provide instructions for this specific file.

Please clarify the instructions and Volume locations for the "Data and Software Rights Assertions" file and the "Data Assertions" File?

Please provide the "Data and Software Rights Assertions" in Volume II-Technical Factor. Please refer back to L.2.1-Volume I - Executive Summary para. (6)-Data and Software Rights Assertions for instructions on this specific file. See Amended RFP.

4 Section L, Table A (page

58) and L.2.3 (page 63)

Table A shows proposal Volume III as having two components: the TEP Worksheet and a file called “Price/Cost Supporting Documentation.”

Section L.2.3 does not explain what the “Price/Cost Supporting Documentation” file should contain.

Please clarify whether this file is

In order to determine the reasonableness of price, information listed in Section L.2.3- Volume III- Price Factor is requested.

required for our proposal submission and what information it should contain.

5 Section L Introduction (page 56) and L.2.2.3 (page 64)

The RFP submission instructions state, "The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited."

However, Section L.2.2.3 tells offerors to "provide the referenced documentation as an appendix(ces) and provide a hyperlink in the CRM to the referenced documentation."

Please confirm that hyperlinks are allowed in the CRM.

Per section L introduction the use of External Hyperlinks in proposals are prohibited. The use of internal hyperlinks within the document are allowed.

6 Section L.2 (page 57) and Table A (page 58)

RFP Section L.2 states that "Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Summary Section, and the narrative discussion."

However, Table A only lists the "Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms" file in Volume I. Please clarify whether we need to provide this glossary in all four volumes.

Please provide Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Summary Section and the narrative discussion in Volumes I and II. See Amended RFP.

7 Section L.2 (page 59)

Section L.2 says that offerors "must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal." Table A does not list this as a file under any Volume. Please clarify how offerors should submit these agreements as part of their proposals (e.g., as an attachment to a specific file?

Please provide this document in Volume I - Executive Summary-(4) Award Documents/Certifications/Representations.

See Amended RFP Section L2.2.1.3. If an offeror chooses to participate in the Phase 0 Integration Risk Reduction Event, it must complete its agreement with Mitre beforehand. Phase 0 is scheduled from 16- 20 Oct.

8 Section L.2.2 (page 62)

RFP Section L.2.2 says that Volume I “shall be organized into the following sections" starting with "L.2.2.1

- Subfactor 1:

Technical Product Demonstration." This appears to refer to the product demonstration, not a proposal component.

Please clarify what the Government expects to see in our written proposal to comply with L.2.2.1 instructions (including subsections L.2.2.1.1, “Demonstration,” and L.2.2.1.2, “Sample Data Available Upon Request”).

There is no written requirement for L.2.2.1 -Subfactor 1 Technical Product Demonstration.

9 Section L

2.2.3 (page 65)

The instructions for the Technical Solution Narrative say the offeror should provide a "Detailed description of how the Offeror intends to interoperate with the existing Mission Command systems at the Battalion echelon and with the existing DCGS-A architecture at echelons above Battalion per the SOW (Section C), paragraph 3.9 and its sub-paragraphs to include an initial integration schedule." The SOW does not appear to contain a Section C, or a paragraph 3.9.

Please clarify this reference.

See RFP Amendment.

10 Section L.2.2.3 (page 65)

The instructions for the Technical Solution Narrative say the offeror should provide a "Detailed description on how the Offeror's proposed solution will comply with SOW paragraph 3.1.5, Army Interoperability Standards." In the SOW, section 3.1.5 is titled "Army Interoperability Certification" and does not seem to contain the referenced information on

The Technical Narrative should describe how the proposed solution will comply with the standards (interoperability formats) needed to achieve an Army Interoperability Certification. The interoperability standards are in the PRD, including the PRD Appendix A.

standards. Please clarify this reference.

11 Section L.2.2.3 (page 65)

The instructions for the Technical Solution Narrative say the Offeror should provide "A complete listing of all that is included within the software assurance and annual license renewal price/package, per the SOW (Section C) paragraph 3.1.7 and its subparagraphs."

The SOW does not appear to contain a Section C. Further, Section 3.1.7 of the SOW is titled "Information Assurance Support for User Trial," and it contains only one sub-section, titled "RMF Self- Assessment Support." Please clarify this reference.

See RFP Amendment

12 (Attachment

3) and CRM (Attachment 5)

There are three requirements that appear in the PRD but not the CRM:

requirements 11.5, 12.6, and 12.7. Given that offerors are instructed to complete the CRM .xlsx file, how and where in the proposal should

PRD requirements 11.5, 12.6, and 12.7 were added to the CRM. See RFP Amendment.

offerors respond to the three additional PRD requirements?

13 Section 3.1.3 (page 8)

In Phase 1 of the UT, the SOW states that "the performance tasks will be detailed in the test plan that will be provided by the Government."

When does the Government anticipate making the test plan available to the Contractors?

The government plans to provide the User Trial Test Plan 20 business days before the start of User Trail per SOW Section 3.1.3, approximately two (2) weeks after program kickoff meeting.

14 Section 3.1.3 (page 8)

The SOW specifies timeframes for User Trial Phase 1 (NTE 2 days) and Phase 3 (NTE 3 days), but not for Phase 2. What is the Government’s intended timeframe for User Trial Phase 2?

Each UT is not expected to exceed four (4) weeks from set-up through teardown.

Phase 2 is not expected to exceed four (4) weeks as the other phases are running in parallel.

15 Sections L.2- L.2.4 (pages 58-69) and Attachment 6

Section L states that there is no page limit for Volume IV - Past Performance Factor.

However, item 38 in Attachment 6 ("Relevant Past Performance Information") states, "Note: The attached CPARS evaluation does not count against the page limitation for the Past Performance volume." Appendix 6 also includes a continuation sheet, which appears to be intended for responses that cannot fit in the

Correct. There is no page limit in Volume IV- Past Performance Factor. Please disregard sentence that includes page limitation for Past Performance Factor. See RFP Amendment.

provided table cells.

Please clarify the page limitations, if any, for the past performance appendices.

16 Attachments 6 and 7

Would the Government please provide editable Word versions of attachments 6 ("Relevant Past Performance Information") and 7 ("Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form")?

The pdf version is editable.

17 1.1 Background

What support needs to exist in the battalion to support and interoperate with the COE? Is this effort to be supported by the annual sustainment CLIN or funded as a future ECP?

Do not price future ECPs into your proposal.

There are no Field Support Representatives and Engineers at the Battalion.

18 1.1 Background

What support needs to exist in the battalion to support and interoperate with the CPCE? Is this effort to be supported by the annual sustainment CLIN or funded as a future ECP?

Do not price future ECPs into your proposal.

There are no Field Support Representatives and Engineers at the Battalion.

19 1.1 Background

How should IC ITE be used? Is an updated SV available to describe the interfaces?

IC ITE use is not needed for CD 1 effort.

20 1.1 Background

What support needs to exist in the battalion to support and interoperate with the JIE? Is this effort to be supported by the annual sustainment CLIN or funded as a future ECP?

Do not price future ECPs into your proposal.

There are no Field Support Representatives and Engineers at the Battalion.

21 1.1 Background

What support needs to exist for DI2E? Is this effort to be supported by the annual sustainment CLIN or funded as a future ECP?

Do not price future ECPs into your proposal.

There are no Field Support Representatives and Engineers at the Battalion.

22 3.1.3 User Trial Tests

(CLIN 0001)

What "other requirements" is the solution to be evaluated against?

Refer to evaluation details in Section L & M.

23 3.1.1 User Trial Preparation

At what point after contract award and for how long will the operationally representative environment at Aberdeen Proving Grounds be available?

Contractors can schedule time to use the environment at Aberdeen Proving Ground immediately following contract award and for an approximate period of about 6 weeks before each user trial. Scheduling will be based on availability and a first come, first serve basis.

24 3.1.3 A. User Trial Preparation

Figure Q-31 of DA PAM 73-1 states that a P1 prevents the accomplishment of an operational or mission-essential capability. What capabilities does the government consider to be mission or operational priorities?

All PRD Requirements are mission-essential. Offerors must propose a CD-1 solution that can meet all PRD requirements within 22 weeks after award, Per M.3.1.3., “the Government will evaluate whether or not the Offerors proposed solution will meet all of the requirements outlined in the Performance Requirements Document (PRD) (Attachment 0003) within 22 weeks after award".

25 15.6 page 10 Can the government provide the SV as referenced in the

PRD 15.6

requirement?

Per Attachment 0009, the SV is included with the GFI package that is loaded on the offeror-provided hard drive and sent back to the offeror.

26 14.1 page 10 PRD 14.1 references that the DCGS-A Capability Drop 1 solution shall be able to operate at the classification level of the unit’s mission.

What is the interface requirement for the solution to operate on different classification levels?

For example, does the CD1 solution have to pass data from NIPR to SIPR to meet this requirement, or is there a requirement for different hard drives at those respective classification levels?

Can the government provide additional details on what is meant by this requirement?

The system does not have to support Multiple Security Levels, simultaneously.

Hard drives will be swapped out to allow access to the different security networks (SIPR, NIPR, etc.).

27 3.5.1 Information Assurance

Given the level of information classification, is the government anticipating the use of embedded type 1

No.

protections in the field kit units?

28 5, 5.0 Delivery Order 0003 (for opportunity)

CLIN 0008 (Annual Software Maintenance Licenses) indicates a quantity of 1,161 (per year, beginning in Year 3). Please clarify whether sustainment license fees are not expected for Years 1 and 2 even though monthly patches must still be applied.

SOW Paragraph 3.4 is correct, annual sustainment consists of years two (2) through ten (10) of the period of performance of this contract. See Amended RFP for revised TEP template.

29 3.3.3.a Price Factor page 8

The TEP template has formulas and fields for CLIN 0008 for Years 1-10 and the SOW has sustainment for Years 2-10. However, Attachment 0004 (Post Award Procedures) says Years 3-10. Please clarify the number of years required for sustainment.

The SOW Paragraph 3.4 is correct, sustainment years are for Years 2-10.

30 L.2. Proposal Submission Requirements

Where should the executed non-disclosure agreements be included in the proposal submission?

Please provide this document in Volume I - Executive Summary-(4) Award Documents/Certifications/Representations.

See Amended RFP Section L2.2.1.3. If an offeror chooses to participate in the Phase 0 Integration Risk Reduction Event, it must complete its agreement with Mitre beforehand. Phase 0 is scheduled from 16- 20 Oct.

31 L.2. Table A Names and Page Limits

Section L, Table A (page 58) of the solicitation shows Data Assertions as content in Volume II Technical Factors.

Page 60 of the

Please provide the "Data and Software Rights Assertions" in Volume II-Technical Factor. Please refer back to L.2.1-Volume I - Executive Summary para. (6)-Data and Software Rights Assertions for instructions on this specific file. See Amended RFP.

solicitation lists Data Assertions as content under the Executive Summary Volume description. Please clarify the proposal location for addressing Data Assertions?

32 H-2.7 page 58 Section H.2.7 (page

58) of the solicitation requires offerors to include commercial software license agreements as part of the offeror's task order proposal package. Where should the copies of commercial software licenses be included in the offeror's proposal submission?

Section H-2.7 does not apply to proposal for the base contract. Offeror's are referred to Section L.2.1 .

33 L.2 Volume III Price Factor

Section L.2.3 states that "In the event the Contracting Officer determines additional information is necessary in order to determine the reasonableness of price, information such as the below may be requested".

Please confirm that the Price/Cost Supporting Documentation listed in Section L.2 is a reference of the kind of supporting documentation that will be needed in the case that the contracting officer determines that adequate price

Yes, the list in Section L.2, without limitations, is the kind of supporting documentation needed competition longer exists in this acquisition.

34 Volume III Price Factor

Would the government provide a notional award date for pricing purposes?

In Section L.2.3-Volume III Price Factor, it states "For proposal preparation purposes only, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is 31 March 2018. The actual performance dates may vary."

35 Exhibit A

Can the government provide the DD Form 1423 listed in the List of Attachments provided on Page 40 of the Solicitation?

CDRLs added in RFP Amendment. See RFP Amendment.

36 B page 8 The solicitation has corresponding CLINs for the option year except for CLIN 0011.

Please clarify that CLIN 0011 is for the entire Period of Performance and not just the base period.

This CLIN is associated with the CDRLS and covers the entire Period of Performance.

37 Engineering Workflow PP

Slide 46 of the Attachment to the PRD references a .vcab file. To what standard does .vcab adhere?

A VCAB is a government format, a sample is provided with the GFI package. See Attachment 0009.

38 Engineering Workflow PP

Slide 44 of the Attachment to the PRD references a .lyr file? This is a proprietary file format. Can the government provide the requisite ICD to read and write the file?

See Amended RFP

39 Engineering Workflow PP

Slide 44 of the Attachment to the PRD references a .wms file. To what

WMS is an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standard.

standard does .wms adhere?

40 L.2.2.3 Subfactor 3:

Technical Solution Narrative

SOW Section 3.9 was removed from the final version of the Statement of Work.

Please confirm that this requirement has either been removed or will be replaced with the appropriate SOW requirements.

Please see the PRD Appendix A and SOW Section 3.1.5.

41 L.2.2.3 Subfactor 3:

Technical Solution Narrative

The third bullet in L.2.2.3 states that Offeror's should address SOW 3.8, which deals with hardware requirements in the final SOW. This requirement (SOW 3.8) appears similar to the fifth bullet in L.2.2.3 that states the following:

Detailed description of hardware requirements and specification, to include purchase approach, plan to rapidly acquire and field during initial fielding phase, and warranty plan, per the SOW (Section C), paragraph 3.10 and its sub- paragraphs.

Inclusion of the MIL- STD-810G profiles detailing what the proposed hardware solution has been tested against.

Is it the intent of the government that these two sections be

Offerors shall propose how to meet both requirements.

similar or shall SOW

3.8 be addressed as part of the fifth bullet in L.2.2.3?

42 L.2.2.3 Subfactor 3:

Technical Solution Narrative

The fifth bullet in L.2.2.3 requires that the Offeror provide:

Detailed description of hardware requirements and specification, to include purchase approach, plan to rapidly acquire and field during initial fielding phase, and warranty plan, per the SOW (Section C), paragraph 3.10 and its sub- paragraphs.

Inclusion of the MIL- STD-810G profiles detailing what the proposed hardware solution has been tested against.

The final SOW no longer contains a Section 3.10. Please clarify where this requirement is to be addressed or whether it has been removed from the SOW entirely

See RFP Amendment

43 L.2.2.3 Subfactor 3:

Technical Solution Narrative

The forth bullet in L.2.2.3 states:

A complete listing of all that is included within the software assurance and annual license renewal price/package, per the SOW (Section C), paragraph 3.1.7 and its sub-paragraphs.

Please clarify:

(1) What information in SOW 3.1.7 refers to software assurance?

(2) What information in SOW 3.1.7 refers to annual license renewal price/package?

See RFP Amendment

44 AFATDS

Messaging

(1) Must the message be passed through DDS, or can it be sent directly to AFATDS?

(2) If it must be passed through DDS, can we use GOTS software for the integration with

DDS?

Message goes direct to AFATDS.