DCGS-A_CD-1_Q&A_Part_2.pdf

Page/Paragraph Number Comment Answer/Comment

45 4;Section 1.0; 1st para;

1st line;

21; Section 3.8; 3rd para

The Total Evaluated Price matrix makes clear that offerors should be prepared to sustain the capability provided for up to 10 years. The language in Section 3.8 which is also cited suggests that the Government may apply a 5-year refresh of hardware.

Should offerors include the projected cost of refreshing the hardware which was originally provided during the 6th year after hardware was originally delivered?

The offeror should provide Range pricing for the HW for all 10 years of the contract.

46 5; Table 2-1

Will the date of the official, approved PRD for DCGS-A document pleased be identified?

The PRD provided with the RFP is the "Official PRD"

47 9; "Table 1" There are several Tables which begin with the numeral "2" preceding Table 1. Has Table 1 been mis-located or mis-labelled?

The format established by the tables which precede it suggest that Table 1 should actually be labelled Table 2-1.

Table 1 corresponds to Section 3.1.3

48 9; 3.1.3; 9th para; this one labelled "C"

Can the Government please clarify what factors would prompt it to not share a "Test Incident Report" with a firm which has received an award of a contract resulting from the DCGS-A CD-1 RFI?

The Government is planning to give all TIRs that are related to the Offeror's solution. But we reserve the right to not provide.

49 10; 3.1.7.1; 2d para; 1st line

Does the Government mean, "deliver" instead of "deliverer" in the quoted text?

Yes, this is a typo should be deliver.

50 Attch 8; Pdt Demo Plan;

para 2)

Does the Government mean, "The Offeror shall deliver its Battalion Solution (up to two workstations) so that the Government receives them at the address stipulated below No Later Than (NLT) 20 November 2017?”

See RFP amendment

51 15; "Table 2" There are several Tables which begin with the numeral "2" preceding the already included question on the labelling of Table 1.

Has Table 2 been mis-located or mis-labelled? The format established by the tables in Section 2 which precede it suggest that Table 2 should actually be labelled Table 3-2.

Table 2 corresponds to SOW Section 3.2.2

52 15; 3.2.2; 5th para Can the Government please clarify what factors would prompt it to not share a "Test Incident Report" with a firm which has received an award of a contract and, subsequently, Delivery Order 2 resulting from the DCGS-A CD-1

RFI?

The Government is planning to give all TIRs that are related to the Offeror's solution. But we reserve the right to not provide.

53 15; 3.2.2; 7th para; To what aspect of the Operational Assessment is the Government referring when it states, "the Pilot Test"?

"Pilot Test" is conducted prior to the start of the record operational test. It usually lasts 1-3 days and confirms that the system and data collection are ready for record test.

54 15, para 3.2.2, 2nd para there-under and para 3.2.5 of the SOW

Can the Gov't please clarify how it plans to conduct a Pre-Operational Assessment meeting "about 15 business days" prior to the OTRR (per para 3.2.5 of the SOW) when the SOW (per para ___ of the SOW) also states that the Gov't will provide notice of the start of the Operational Assessment until "no less than 10 business days" prior to the start of the Operational Assessment?

The "Pre Operational Assessment" meeting is to discuss and review readiness to begin the OA.

The purpose of the email notification is to provide the Contractor a detailed schedule so the Contractor can prepare to support the training and the OA's required on site support.

55 19, para 3.7 Can the Gov't please clarify what organization is represented by

"CM"?

CDRLS have now been provided as part of an Amended RFP

56 9; 3.1.3; 9th para; this one labelled "C";

15; 3.2.2; 5th para;

20; 3.71; 1st para there-under

In the paragraphs discussing the UT and the OA, the Government indicates it may not share Test Incident Reports with an Offeror.

But in para 3.7.1, successful Offerors seem to be held accountable, once they are awarded a contract, to have helped collect and draft Software Problem Reports on all potentially software-related problems encountered throughout both the UT and OA phases.

Can the Government please clarify its intent as conveyed in these three portions of the SOW; they do not appear to be entirely consistent.

The Government is planning to give all TIRs that are related to the Offeror's solution. But we reserve the right to not provide.

57 21; para 3.7.4 Does the Government expect each Offeror to make a contractual arrangement with the manufacturer of any hardware it provides the Government which will enable each Offeror to conform with this 90-day advance notification requirement?

Offerors shall propose according to L.2.2.3., and provide a detailed description of how they will execute the recurring requirements in SOW paragraphs 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, and their subparagraphs. Hardware solutions must meet the requirements of the PRD over the entire period of performance.

58 22; Sect 4.3 Can the Government please identify how representatives of a successful Offeror will be able to establish access with their firm's networks and their firm's e-mail capabilities while working in Government/Military facilities?

In the contemporary world, such access is generally necessary during the course of any given business day for managers, engineers and technicians.

No, Refer to Section SOW section 4.3.

59 Important to note that the Government is expecting a firm fixed price for CLINs 0001, 0003 and 0004 to cover any and all travel that wind up being required of a successful Offeror to support these CLINs

Yes, The prices for CLINs 0001, 0003, & 0004 should be proposed under an FFP basis

60 Attch 1, SOW; pp 23 - 24;

Sect 8.0

It is impossible to properly respond to the Government's invoking of Data Items without having a properly, completely prepared DD Form 1423 citation for each Data Item being invoked on a contract.

Can the Government please provide the DD Forms 1423 for the DCGS-A Capability Drop-1 solicitation at the earliest possible time?

See Amended RFP.

CDRLs have been added to the

RFP.

61 Attch 1, SOW; pp 23 - 24;

Sect 8.0; 7th entry

Does the Government most likely intend to refer to DI-ADMN- 81306"? Data Item Descriptions are not identified with a 5-characterer grouping in the second set of characters in the identifier assigned to each DID.

See Amended RFP.

CDRLs have been added to the

RFP.

62 Attch 1, SOW; pp 23 - 24;

Sect 8.0; 3rd entry

There appears to be no Data Item Description with the identifier, "DI- MISC-80934C" associated with it available at DTIC. However, there is a DID with the identifier, "DI- MGMT-80934C" and the title "Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan."

Did the Government perhaps intend to cite DI-MGMT-80934C as the guidance for a deliverable Operations Security Plan?

It would potentially be helpful if the Government provided the needed DD Forms 1423 for this solicitation.

We note that the entry for ELIN A003 cites "DI-MGMT-80934C as does the discussion of the Operations Security Plan within Appendix A to the SOW.

See Amended RFP.

CDRLs have been added to the

RFP.

63 Attchmt 1, SOW; pp 7 - 8;

para 3.1.1

Did the Government intend or mean to state, "The goal is for the Contractor to tailor its solution to meet all Government PRD requirements, as per Section J, Attachment 0003, as well as the requirements of the Army Interoperability Certification (AIC) and the Cybersecurity RMF factors to be identified as per DI-MGMT- 82135 (CDRL entry A004)--if and when the Government adds a CDRL to the RFP?

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". The contractor will also be responsible achieving both an AIC (CLIN 0003) and RMF certification (CLIN 0002 & CLIN 0005) for the proposed solution.

Refer to Attachment 0004, Post Award Procedures section 1.0 Overview.

64 Solicitation; pg 59; last para

Can an Offeror use the same Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for all 4 volumes? Or does the Government require that each volume have a unique Glossary citing only the terms and acronyms used within that volume?

See RFP amendment

65 Solicitation; pg 59; last para

Although the SOW in its Section 8.0 indicates a Government intent to provide a CDRL and even identifies Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) that are intended for inclusion in the Solicitation, under the FAR and DFARS and consistent with DoD 5010.12-M, a CDRL should be provided using DD Forms 1423.

CDRLS have now been provided as part of an Amended RFP

66 Solicitation; Attchmt 1 (SOW) and Attchmt 4 (Post Awd Procedures)

Is this understanding of the Government's intended schedule for the DCGS-A CD-1 program accurate? If not, can the Government please clarify its intent?

As a reference, please refer to the illustration pasted below which reflects an effort to understand the overall schedule when integrated together from various parts of Solicitation Attachments 0001 and 0004.

Refer to Attachment 4 Post Award Procedures Section 2.0 Notional Schedule

67 Attchmt 0003, PRD, pg 7, para 1.5 and

Attchmt 0008, CD-1 Demonstration Plan

Can the Government please confirm that the "Running Estimate" as referenced in the PRD and the Demonstration Plan is primarily focused on presenting elements of the Intelligence Estimate with the most current information and validating that the information presented is updated on a recurrent basis as the underlying intelligence information changes through time?

Per Army Dcotrine Publication 2.0 Intelligence, A running estimate is the continuous assessment of the current situation used to determine if the current operation is proceeding according to the commander's intent and if the planned future operations are supportable.

68 Attchmt 0003, PRD, pg 7, para 1.5 and

Attchmt 0008, CD-1 Demonstration Plan

Attachment 0008 states, in part, "Populate the Command Brief (Vendor Format) and Running Estimate (Vendor Format) with the BN Specific Weather Effects information."

For the purposes of creating acceptable Vendor-formatted organizations of these documents, can the format in the 26 May 2014 issuance of FM 6-0, Cmd & Staff Org and Ops, (Figure 8-1, pg 8-2) be used as a reference for structuring an Offeror's Command Briefing and, also, the Intelligence Running Estimate? Can the Government can please provide additional fidelity about what they expect to see for the running estimate? Is it a screen, data structure, document, part of the COP --- what specifically is meant by running estimate and what data structure is desired to keep it in?

Vendor format per the Product Demo Plan, will be evaluated upon receipt.

69 Solicitation; Attachment 006 and Attachment 007

With regards to documenting Past Performance, does the inclusion of a CPARS as part of Attachment 0006 for a specific contract preclude the need to send Attachment 0007 (Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form) for the same contract, or it is required that Attachment 0007 is sent for all past performance references in addition to the completed CPARS for those references/contracts?

No, send attachment 0007 for all past performances references.

70 Atchmt 006 and Atchmt

With regard Past Performance in a tactical environment, can the Government please be more specific in its definition of tactical environment? Several questions have arisen; e.g.,

1) Does the Government consider Army's National Training Center or the USMC's 29 Palms as qualifying as a tactical environment?

2) Is use of software at the Operational or Strategic level in Afghanistan or Iraq considered deployed to (or within a tactical environment?

3) Is tactical environment defined as Battalion level and below?

IAW the RFP, the government will evaluate the information it receives.

71 Atchmt 0003, paras 1.1 and 1.2

Does the DCGS-A BN CD-1 System have to conform to the MIL-STD- 2525C Meteorological and Oceanographic Content (METOC) Symbology?

MIL-STD-2525C is not required.

The PRD calls out MIL-STD-2525B.

72 Atchmt 0008, Pdt Demo Index 29

For both the Phase 0 Risk Reduction and the Phase 2 demonstration portions of the Product Demonstration, are Offerors connecting their proposed solutions to AFATDS via DDS or directly to the AFATDS API?

For Phase 0, the connection will be directly to AFATDS.

73 Atchmt 0008, 2nd para under "Phase 0"

Is the goal of the risk reduction not only to permit Offerors to validate that their proposed solution can connect to AFATDS but also for each Offeror to ascertain if its proposed solution can connect and transmit a message to AFATDS in multiple ways -- therefore permitting each Offeror to develop an understanding of the flexibility of its proposed solution?

For the Phase 0 Risk Reduction, there is no requirement to demonstrate AFATDS Interoperability in more than one or multiple ways.

74 Atchmt 0008, 2nd para under "Phase 0"

Why won’t the Government release the API calls and AFATDS connectivity information ahead of time?

Why is it--apparently--important to the Government that the risk reduction for transmitting messages to AFATDS be conducted without advanced preparation in a highly constrained and limited time period (no more than 4 hours)?

More information earlier with these things provides better software and outcomes.

They were released as part of the GFI package. They will also be covered during the video presented at the Phase 0 risk reduction event.

75 Atchmt 0008, Appendix C, para 6

Please define what and how SSGF is going to be used in the demonstration?

See the PRD and Appendix. As an example, SSGF will be used to create several IPB products, during the Product Demonstration.

76 Engineering Diagrams disseminated with Atchmt 0003; Slide 46

VCAB files are proprietary XML files without SCHEMA which reflect information extracted from DCGS-A Threat Entity Database (TED).

Is it possible, please, for the Government to provide a complete breakdown of all the different types of information Offerors proposed solutions will see (be presented) – with some definitions so that each Offeror can provide the Government better results?

The VCAB product has been made available via the 1 TB hard drive for requested GFI. See section L.2.2.1.2 Sample Data available upon request.

77 Atchmt 0008, Appendix C As part of the Product Demonstration for the Walkthrough, the Government is going to provide data that will be loaded into each Offeror's proposed system prior to the actual walkthrough. One of the items to be uploaded is potentially a file in the DTED, JP2 or NITF formats, each of which are VERY large-format map components.

Can Offerors be provided the opportunity to load such files "up front" as part of the initial data load or is it expected for the operator to load such files as part of the Walkthrough? Typically, that item would be sent to the appropriate subsystem during data setup before an operator executes the steps to be reviewed during the Walkthrough. .

All of the DTED, JPEG 2000 and NITF data for the product demo will be the same as was available in the GFI package upon request per L.2.2.1.2.

78 Atchmt 0008; Pdt Demo Index; Index #5; Engrg Diagram Column

Why is there a redundant entry for Engineering Workflow 1.3.3 for Product Demo Index #5?

Is this simply a redundant entry?

Or does the redundancy bear a specific--but unclear significance--to the Government (and the ultimate users of the successful DCGS-A CD-1 system(s))?

Or, is does the redundant entry contain one or more typos and another Engineering Workflow should be identified? If so, can the Government please provide the correct Engineering Workflow citation?

The duplication is a typo. FOUO PRD Appendix has been corrected and sent out as part of RFP Amendment.

79 Atchmt 0008; Pdt Demo Index; Engrg Diagram Column

Can the Government please clarify why some Engineering Workflows which apparently are essential elements of completing identified tasks are omitted from the Product Demonstration?

As an example, Engineering Workflows 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are not included in what appear to be the relevant Demonstration Indexes --numbers 3 and 4.

The purpose of the product demonstration is not to demonstrate every PRD requirement, but to show a sample.

80 Atchmt 0008; Pdt Demo Index; Engrg Diagram Column

In view of the preceding question (question 35), can the Government please clarify why some Engineering Workflows which are not mapped by the Government to a specific task are nonetheless identified against that unrelated task for evaluation as part of the Product Demonstration?

As an example, Engineering Workflows 1.4.2., 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5 and 2.2.2 have been incorporated together with Engineering Workflows 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 in Demonstration Index 5.

The purpose of the product demonstration is not to demonstrate every PRD requirement, but to show a sample.

81 Att 8 Page 1, Para 2 Attachment 0008 CD1 Demonstration Plan states that the Offeror shall deliver two workstations to the Government NLT 20 November. It also says that the Offeror shall ship their solution to: Research BLD #200, Aberdeen MD. It is our intent to hand carry our two workstations to the aforementioned address and deliver in person. Is this acceptable to the government?

They can hand deliver the HW to MITRE as long as it makes the same suspense per the RFP.

Coordinate through Prettina Biedenkapp at prettina.j.biedenkapp.civ@mail.mi l, prior to delivery and deliver in a sealed container. We do not plan to open/touch anything until the morning of their setup.

82 Page 4 Would the government provide clarification on what is meant by “a software telemetry solution”?

Software telemetry is defined as the entire process of generating logs for all software activity on the BN solution that show system and user activity patterns. This data will be used to analyze patterns in system stability, reliability, and usability to better refine and mature the product.

83 Total Evaluated Price Worksheet

For Offerors that provide a commercial appliance solution (a unified product comprised of both software and hardware), is it acceptable to price the commercial appliance solution using either CLIN 6 or CLIN 7 if the software and hardware cannot be separately priced?

No

84 Total Evaluated Price Worksheet

The projected ceiling value of the Solicitation is $876M. Can the Government confirm whether this is also the ceiling value of the Total Evaluated Price on Cell C19 of Attachment 12 Tab 3? If not, can the Government provide any additional information relating to how it expects Offerors to relate the Total Evaluated Price to the Solicitation ceiling?

The offeror's total evaluated price is the dollar amount located in cell

C19 of attachment 12 Tab 3.

Offerors shall refer to the information provided in the solicitation.

85 RFP Can the Government provide any additional information into about how it arrived at the Total Solicitation ceiling of $876M?

The $876M is the maximum the government may order and the minimum we will order is $3,500.

The government may order any amount in between these amounts.

86 3.3.2 In SOW 3.3.2, The Government asks for applicable licenses for hardware. Can the Government provide an example of a hardware license associated with the Solution?

The offeror should provide any unique software/firmware licenses associated with the hardware they select. The

Government needs to know what data rights are associated with this software/firmware. If there are no licenses associated with the hardware, so state.

87 3.8 & L.2.2.3 Can the Government provide the minimum set of MIL STD 810G tests it is seeking testing documentation and data for?

IAW section L.2.2.3 of the RFP, Offerors are required to provide

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

88 L.2 The solicitation includes the government SF-1449. Table A (page

58) does not include the signed Offeror SF-1449.

On page 1 of the solicitation in block 28, the Contractor is

Required to Sign this document and return to us.

89 L.2 The instructions listed in RFQ Section L.2 (Proposal Submission Requirements) for Volume IV-Past Performance at the bottom of page 59 regarding non-disclosure agreements with the non-government advisors state that Offerors "shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal."

Please provide this document in Volume I-Executive Summary-(4)

Award Documents/Certifications/Represe ntations. See Amended RFP Section L.2.2.1.3. 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 October.

90 L.2.2.1.3

Solicitation Section L.2.2.1.3 (bottom of page 61) states that these agreements are to be submitted via e-mail in advance of the optional Phase 0 integration session.

Please confirm our understanding that these non-disclosure agreements are to be submitted via e-mail to the individuals listed in Section L.2.2.1.3 and that they need not be submitted as part of the Offeror's proposal.

91 L.2 Section L.2.1 (6)--Data and Software Rights Assertions indicates a host of information to be included as part of Volume I - Executive Summary. No section is given in Table A (page 58) for including the data and software rights assertions is given in the Volume I--Executive Summary part of the outline structure given in Table A (page 58). A file name

Please provide the "Data and Software Rights Assertions" in

Volume II-Technical Factor. See Amended RFP.

placeholder is however given in Volume II--Technical Factor.

L.2.1 Please confirm our understanding that the Data and Software Rights Assertions requirements in Section L.2.1 (6) are to be moved into Volume II-Technical Approach Narrative.

92 L.2 Section L.2 at the bottom of page 57 state 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, no location of file name is given in Table A as to where those items are to be provided.

Please provide the Table of Contents, Glossary of

Abbreviations and Acronyms, Summary Section and the

Narrative Discussion in Volume 1 and II. See amended RFP.

Please clarify:

(1) Whether the government would accept this information in separate files for each volume and appropriately labeled as:

VOLx_FRONT_MATTER.docx or VOLx_FRONT_MATTER.pdf

(2) What information is to be included in the “narrative discussion” item mentioned in this front matter material.

93 Eng_Dia_BN_Package.pp tx

What are the data retention needs for the system?

There is no minimum data retention requirement.

94 Eng_Dia_BN_Package.pp tx

What is the estimated size of the data that needs to be acquired from the TED or other sources?

There is no estimated size at this time. This may be later defined at the order level.

95 Eng_Dia_BN_Package.pp tx

What is the estimated size of the map data that will be loaded on the system?

There is no estimated size at this time. For the product demo the map size will be under 60 GB.

Additional requirements may be defined at the order level.

96 Eng_Dia_BN_Package.pp tx

Is the government planning to install other software packages on the system that will impact the storage needed on the device that we need to anticipate?

No, the government is not planning on loading any additional SW that could impact storage, onto the DCGS-A BN Solution HW.

97 Attachment_0012_Total_ Evaludated_Price_CD1_2

6_September.xlsx

Based on the SOW requirements related to Delivery Order 1 and 2, the scope of work in comparison varies greatly between DO1 and DO2. Would the government consider altering the proportion between of the affordability caps for Delivery Order 1 and 2?

The Government will not change its affordability cap worksheet at this time for Delivery Order 1 & 2

98 Eng_Dia_BN_Package.pp tx

Slide 44 of the Attachment to the PRD references a .geodb file. Can the government provide the requisite ICD to read and write the file?

See Amended RFP

99 L.2 The solicitation instructions require offerors to establish proprietary information agreements with the identified non-government support contractors. The email contact address provided in the solicitation for Jennifer Stroh of Alliance Consulting Services, LLC, is not a valid email address. Emails sent to this address have been returned as non-deliverable. Can the government provide an updated contact e-mail address for Alliance Consulting Services, LLC?

Email address has been revised in the Amended RFP