IEWTPT_Responses_10FEB16.pdf

Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Tactical Proficiency Trainer -

W900KK-16-R-0005

Questions and Answers 10 February 2016

Date: December 17, 2015

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: IEWTPT DRFP

Document Date: 12-2-2015 Reference Section/Paragraph:

Question/Comment: What Type of Contract will be awarded?

Response: A standard C type contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price Contract Line Items as stated in clause 52.216-1.

Date: Dec 18 2015

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft_W900KK-16-R-0005_02DEC15

Document Date: 02 Dec 15 Reference Section/Paragraph: L.5

Question/Comment:

Can the Government please confirm that the 3 page summary sections are excluded from the page limits of Volumes I and II?

Response: The 3 page summaries are included in the page limits of Volumes I and II.

Date: December 18, 2015

Document Date: 19 Nov 15 Reference Section/Paragraph: L.5 / Table 2 / Volume 1

Question/Comment:

Table 2 specifies that Technical Volume shall not exceed 45 pages.

The SSS and SOW have a large number of requirements that need to be fully addressed in the technical solution. Additionally, the technical solution needs to address the approach to cyber security.

To adequately address all of the requirements as well as the cyber security solution, recommend increasing the Technical Volume page count to not to exceed 55 pages.

Response: The page count limitation for Volume I has been increased to 55 pages from 45.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.5.3.6.e

Under the Cost Realism section, where the elements of cost are specified to be included in cost proposal…..it states “Fee (unless Cost Reimbursable). Why does the Government believe Technical Support should be non-fee bearing costs? Since it entails all of the following type activities under SOW paragraph 3.3.5?

Recommend Cost Reimbursable CLINs be changed to CPFF.

Response: After reviewing the NTEs and SOW reference, concur. Technical Support will be changed to CPFF.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.5.3.10.g

Why is Prime being required to perform and include the results of Cost or price analysis for a competitive procurement? Shouldn’t this be required only if adequate competition is not provided for?

Response: L.6.5.3.10.g states that cost or price analysis is required for non-competitive subcontracts. For non-competitive subcontracts, rather than a cost or price analysis the negotiation documentation and basis for selection are required. Understanding that this is a competitive procurement it is also a cost type contract and thus the Government requires sufficient information to conduct a cost-realism analysis, as stated in the solicitation.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.5.3.14.a & b.

Cost Rates - Often Small Business subcontractors do not have Forward Pricing Rates and bid using individual rates for each proposal/subcontract. Shouldn’t this be required only if adequate competition is not provided for?

Response: L.6.5.3.14 provides instructions for instances where FPRAs are not available. As this is a cost type contract, the Government requires sufficient information to conduct a cost-realism analysis, as stated in the solicitation.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.5.7

Question/Comment:

Cost Proposal Adequacy Checklist - Usually this checklist is required for TINA type proposals. Shouldn’t this be required only if adequate competition is not provided for?

Response: The Cost Proposal Adequacy Checklist was prepared with the expectation of adequate competition, fields have been tailored accordingly, no change.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 Technical Approach

Section L and M is missing critical technical evaluation criteria for addressing significant sections of the statement of work (SOW) and System/Subsystem Specification (SSS) requirements.

Recommend adding a fourth technical criteria under L.6.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 Technical Approach for source selection in evaluating offer’s understanding and approach to meeting or exceeding technical performance of the statement of work (SOW) and System/Subsystem Specification (SSS) requirements. This will ensure offerors address the approach and risks in transitioning from Block I to Block II requirements.

Recommend adding the following:

“Describe your approach to maintaining the current Block I baseline and concurrency with existing and evolving ISR systems while migrating Block I to Block II cloud computing architecture.”

Response: Non-concur. The current evaluation factors and subfactors adequately capture the approach to maintaining the existing baseline while migrating to Block II.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15 Reference Section/Paragraph: M.3 Evaluation Criteria, M.3.1 Factor I – Technical, M3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Approach

M.3.1.1 identifies only SOW 3.2, 3.2.1 and 3.4.1.2 for evaluation criteria. This may cause offerors to omit critical SOW subsections in their proposed offering for evaluation.

Recommend clarifying evaluation criteria for offerors technical approach and understanding to meeting or exceeding technical performance of the statement of work (SOW) should encompass 100% of sections and subsections for 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5.

Response: As stated in the solicitation, the awardee will be required to comply with all of the SOW and SSS requirements during contract performance. Also, an offeror may be considered ineligible for award if the proposal indicates that it cannot meet any of the SOW or SSS requirements. With that in mind, the primary discriminating evaluation criteria have been determined and included in the solicitation.

Date: January 13, 2016

Question/Comment: Is it anticipated that an OCI will exist?

Response: No, the Government is taking the appropriate steps to ensure that all Offerors have the information that is necessary in order to make a bid/no-bid judgement and provide a sound proposal.

Question/Comment: What sort of innovation is desired?

Response: The Government is the expert in requirements, we rely on industry’s expertise in developing innovative solutions considering cost, schedule and performance. As with all best value trade-off procurements, proposed trade-offs (innovation at the cost of price and schedule or vice versa) should be analyzed very carefully before being proposed and supporting information should be provided to substantiate the decision to propose a particular solution.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Is Synthetic Training Environment (STE) involved in the requirements?

Response: Constructive simulation support is in the SOW/SSS; however, STE is beyond the scope and schedule of the current source selection.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Is the Government interested in innovation within the customer option CLINs?

Response: The areas in which to propose innovation are at the sole discretion of the offeror, as long as all requirements are being met then innovation may be considered in the trade-off evaluation.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: To reasonably estimate a price for concurrency updates to existing systems and their components requires significant knowledge of the existing IEWTPT systems and likely insight as to what updates are necessary. Even given forthcoming documentation, the incumbent has superior knowledge of this requirement and hence a distinct advantage; will the Government consider making this CLIN a NTE CLIN?

Response: Concur, CLIN 0010 will be given a NTE as it is for FYs 17 and 18 concurrency.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: L.6.5.3.12 states “General statements such as “estimates were derived from engineering judgement” or “estimates were derived from comparison with similar systems” are not acceptable…”, so what is acceptable?

Response: The section continues on to say “unless the details of the engineering analysis and/or similar systems analysis are provided.” The paragraph provides other acceptable means of providing narrative descriptions.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Assuming the incumbent is not the new awardee, is there an opportunity for a transition period with the incumbent?

Response: Whether there will be a transition period is still to be determined.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: If reading rooms will be necessary due to size limitations or amount of documents, will virtual reading rooms be allowed?

Response: It is not anticipated that size limitations or the number of documents will inhibit delivery of limited distribution documents.

Question/Comment: Is there a mechanism for involving INSCOM?

Response: Intel stakeholders, USAICoE, DA G2, includes INSCOM representation for requirements consideration.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Has an ID/IQ which breaks out separate components and encourages small business participation been considered?

Response: It appears as though a Multiple Award ID/IQ is referred to. A MAC is not appropriate and will not be pursued for this effort. A single award ID/IQ does not appear to provide additional small business opportunities beyond a standard C type contract.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Recommend increasing pre-priced option CLINs (NTEs) to preserve desired contract ceiling value or convert to an ID/IQ with sufficient overall ceiling.

Response: The NTEs have been determined based on the anticipated requirements with sufficient margin for unknowns. NOTE: Values have NOT been artificially reduced in order to maintain a value well below thresholds for higher level review (such as ASA(ALT)). All values have been determined independently and objectively, without consideration of what affect it may have on review levels.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: Will additional documentation be provided in order to ensure all offerors have a common understanding of the current system and requirements?

Response: All relevant documentation will be released as early as practicable ahead of and with the final solicitation. Government team is finalizing builds for release in order to ensure common understanding.

Question/Comment: Will awardee have access to source code?

Response: Yes, for all IEWTPT developed code and interfaces. Other program dependencies will have to be negotiated program to program.

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: DRFP L.6.5.3.12 [Cost] Narrative Description of Work: This paragraph implies an overbearing justification as to how, at an extraordinary level of detail, individual cost elements were derived. “Similar systems and engineering judgment” for evolving solutions and architectures, and applied to POR systems (e.g.

Biometrics or NSA) not yet defined in most of the CLINs is perhaps a reasonable process. Will the Government consider simplifying the cost narrative requirements?

Response: Non-concur that the required narrative includes overbearing justification.

Analogous information for comparable efforts is acceptable, as stated in L.6.5.3.12 – “If historical/analogous information for comparable efforts is available, it should be described in a description of estimate/process portion of the cost proposal.”

Document Date: 02 Dec 15

Question/Comment: DSOW 1.0 Scope: “The purpose of this SOW is to define the tasks, products, equipment, supplies, facilities, data items and required labor hours to accomplish the tasks associated with this contract.” We didn’t see specific/required labor hours, among other details, addressed in the DSOW. Will the Government be able to provide more information (e.g., number lines of code per module, programming languages, system architecture drawings, etc) that will allow better understanding of the requirements and level of effort?

Response: Additional documentation will be provided as it is finalized. Programming languages and lines of code per subsystem are provided in response to questions regarding the SSS.

Date: 09 February 2016

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft_W900KK-16-R-0005_02DEC15.doc

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section B

CLIN 009, COE Compliance PoP is listed as “FYs 2017”. There is no FY 2018 associated CLIN. TEP has CLIN 009 under 2017 and 2018 section. Is this a mistake in Section B, and should be it be listed as “FYs 2018 & 2018?”

Response: CLIN 0009 is for both FYs 2017 and 2018, the Section B table has been corrected.

Date: 9 February 2016

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_5_Evaluated_Price.xlsx

Document Date:

There is an error in the spreadsheet: Fielding option 007 and 008 are not added in the cost. Cells B7 and B8 are not included in Subtotal Cell B10. If the cells are not in B10, then they are not added to overall Total Cost.

Response: Concur. The error in the spreadsheet has been corrected.

Date: 17 December 2015

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: IEWTPT DRFP Attachment 1 SOW V 2.2

Document Date: 11-19-2015

Reference Section/ Paragraph: 3.2.6.5 JOINT WORLDWIDE INTELLIGENCE

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (JWICS) INSTALLATION

“The Contractor shall have a secure physical and operational environment capable of hosting a JWICS connection. The Contractor shall coordinate with PEO STRI and appropriate relevant agencies, to ensure a local JWICS connection is available to support SCIF based, IEWTPT powered, distributed training operations, address cybersecurity accreditation issues, support document exchanges with accreditors, resolve site support issues, instantiate security updates, execute upload/ download of development, operations, and sustainment support material, and conduct management and maintenance of the Intel-link IEWTPT SharePoint site.”

Does the government use of the word “local” imply that the JWICS connected site has to be within a constrained radius to the PEOSTRI location? Previous guidance was within a 10 mile radius.

A network based and distributed training operations capability could be more cost effective if the actual location of the hardware was not constrained. The contractor should have access to the JWICS network at a local node to demonstrate system capabilities and address cybersecurity accreditation issues while allowing for location of the supporting hardware to be at the most cost effective and operationally beneficial location.

The Contractor cannot “ensure” a local JWICS is available since provisioning of such network domain is only within the Government’s purview.

Response: The Government requires the offerors to provide a secure and properly equipped SCIF capable of hosting the installation and operation of a JWICS connection sponsored and coordinated by the government. The “10 Mile Radius” constraint for a SCIF location has been removed.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: IEWTPT DRFP. Attachment 1 SOW V2.2

Document Date: 19 NOV 2015

Reference Section/Paragraph: M.3.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Cybersecurity

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide an appropriate and accredited Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) ready for use at contract award. (SOW 3.2.6.4)

Question/Comment: Prior Sources Sought requests indicated a requirement to have a SCIF within 10 miles of PEO STRI. Can the government confirm that the location of an appropriate SCIF is not part of the evaluation criteria?

Response: The “10 Mile Radius” constraint for a SCIF location has been removed and it is not part of the evaluation criteria.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: IEWTPT DRFP. Attachment 1 SOW V2.2

Document Date: 19 NOV 2015

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.3.1 PDD

The Contractor shall develop, produce, and maintain product definition data (PDD) that accurately depicts the final product. The PDD is the technical description of items adequate for informing an acquisition strategy, supporting production, engineering, cybersecurity and life-cycle needs. The PDD shall disclose complete design, cybersecurity, logistics, and manufacturing requirements, and the means of measuring compliance with the requirements.

Question/Comment: Do PDD’s exist for the current IEWTPT systems? For which subsystems and components? Will the Government make these available?

Response: Product Definition Data PDD’s do exist and will be made available with the final solicitation.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: IEWTPT DRFP and Exhibits A-C

Document Date: 12-2-2015

Question/Comment: Upon contract award, will the government provide existing CDRLs from the current contract(s) spanning the last 5 years?

Response: The Government will provide all relevant CDRL’s required for contract execution.

Date: 12/18/15

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft_W900KK-16-R-0005_02DEC15.doc, Attachment_1_SOW_19NOV15.docx

Document Date: 11/19/15

Reference Section/Paragraph: DRFP M.3.1.2, SOW 3.2.6

Question/Comment: Is it correct to assume that the new contract is responsible for reaching Block 1 accreditation?

Response: The new contract will require the offeror to support the sustainment, maintenance, and renewal of current accreditations and support the attainment of new accreditations.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft_W900KK-16-R-0005_02DEC15.doc, Attachment_1_SOW_19NOV15.docx

Reference Section/Paragraph: DRFP M.3.1.2, SOW 3.2.6

Question/Comment: Was Block 1 evaluated for IA as a requirement for acceptance testing? If so, what were the results?

Response: Yes, it was and all fielded sites have current, valid Authority To Operate (ATO’s) determination letters.

The following are the expiration dates and approval authority for those ATO’s.

HCC - 13 Apr 2017 - Designated Approval Authority is PEO STRI Commander

TCC LE- 20 Aug 2017 – Approval Authority is Army CIO G6

TCC UE- 31 July 2018 – Approval authority is Army G2

TCC Enclave Bridge (EB) accreditation is under review.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_1_SOW_19NOV15.docx

Reference Section/Paragraph: 1. 1 Background

Question/Comment: What are the additional (Block 2) MI training capabilities?

Response: Block 2 MI training requirements are defined in Section 3.0 of the System/ Subsystem Specification (SSS).

Reference Section/Paragraph: Attachment_1_SOW_19NOV15.docx

1. 1 Background

Question/Comment: What are the specific Block 2 objectives?

Response: Block 2 MI training requirements are defined in Section 3.0 of the System/ Subsystem Specification (SSS).

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.3.1 Product Definition Data

Question/Comment: Are any of the IEWTPT Block 1 PDD's available for review?

Response: Product Definition Data PDD’s for Block 1 do exist and will be made available with the final solicitation.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.1.3 Cloud / Data Center

Question/Comment: Does the current IEWTPT System use a commercial product or solution to manage its operational mode? If so, which one(s)? If not, what are the technical details of the current IEWTPT Block 1 operational architecture?

Response: There is no COTS solution to manage the IEWTPT System in operational mode. Technical details of the current IEWTPT Block 1 operational architecture can be found on the System Sub/System Design Description (SSDD) which describes the as-built architectural design and related interfaces. This document will be will be provided at or before the final solicitation release.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.4.1 Integration Events

Question/Comment: Please provide, if available, AAR notes/slides for previous IEWTPT Block 1 Integration Event exercises.

Response: There are no formal AAR notes/ slides available from previous IEWTPT Block 1 Integration Event exercises.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.3.1

Question/Comment: What is the envisioned use case for this overall system from logistics down to end user that identifies cybersecurity? i.e., should this be administered from a central or admin location(s) that push IA patches to the various sites where the various sites are expected to be at the same revision level. Is there a desire to have the various sites interoperate past their geographic locations since currently they are each running from a standalone network enclave.

Response: As of the expected contract award, all sites are at the same revision level.

All sites must be maintained at the same security level (patches, updates etc.) Remote Cybersecurity administration is a potential course of action. Interoperation and distributed training capabilities beyond site geographic boundaries would be advantageous. The TCC upper enclave currently operates in a distributed manner.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.2 Modification / System Upgrades

Question/Comment: What agency/ agencies perform these studies?

Response: The government does not call for a specific trade study process, model, or standard but it does desire the use of trade study processes that support the implementation and execution of a disciplined System Engineering process consistent with best industry practices.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.2 Modification / System Upgrades

Question/Comment: What is the process for implementing system changes based on trade study results?

Response: The Government shall be informed of trade-off results and any accompanying proposed system changes and course of action/ implementation strategies. Government Program Management IPT and collective review is anticipated.

Question/Comment: Are there any restrictions (e.g., security) on what systems can be stimulated with real or notional data?

Response: Yes, whatever native prohibitions any given system has, either functionally or by policy. These are properties of those systems and IEWTPT has no say on it.

[National Security Agency (NSA) for example, generally does not allow training data to either populate or flow across their network]

Question/Comment: Are the TCC data message formats and communication protocols available?

Response: TCC data messages are available in (Section 4.1.4) of the System/ SubSystem Design Description (SSDD) which will be will be provided at or before the final solicitation release.

Question/Comment: Are the TCC component piece(s) restricted only to those with TS/SCI clearance?

Response: All TCC Upper Enclave (UE) interactions are restricted to TS/SCI cleared personnel.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.1.8.3 - SW Configuration Management (CM)

Question/Comment: Are there any specified threshold requirements for the CM system?

Response: There are no specified threshold requirements for the CM system. The government desires a CM system that most efficiently manages and executes CM operations for the system.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.1.3 Cloud - Data Center

Question/Comment: Is any of the software currently running in a one-to-many structure or will all software have be modified to support this?

Response: The HCC has prototyped operations in a one to many cloud environment.

The TCC does not.

Question/Comment: How many remote sites must be simultaneously supported?

Currently, there are 14 IEWTPT sites at army locations across the world. Army acquisition objective (AAO) to meet Full operational capability (FOC) requirements will increase to 24 manned sites through FY20 that will require simultaneous support.

Question/Comment: What is the anticipated number of concurrent users?

Response: Minimally, it is estimated that simultaneous/ concurrent users at any point in time is 144 users (24 sites ~ 6 users per site). The government assumes that “users” in this case refers to system operators not trainees. Currently, there are 14 IEWTPT sites at army locations across the world. The Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) to meet full operational capability (FOC) requirements will increase to 24 manned sites through

FY20.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.2 Modification/System Upgrades

Question/Comment: Please provide the number of systems that currently support HLA and or DIS?

Response: The TCC supports HLA and/or DIS feeds. Currently, there are 14 IEWTPT sites at army locations across the world and all are DIS/HLA compliant. Objective fielding requirements will increase to 24 sites. All sites will be required to support

DIS/HLA.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.4.2 Modification/System Upgrades

Question/Comment: Please provide interoperability testing results from all FEDERATED IEWTPT systems?

Response: IEWTPT is a non- formal member of multiple Federations and as such it is not required to produce and does not have formal interoperability test results to provide.

IEWTPT has successfully subscribed to MRF and/ or ERF driven federated events.

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.4.2 Government Acceptance Testing

Question/Comment: Which entities verify training content and assess user completion/ proficiency level?

Response: The Materiel Developer (MATDEV), as well as the contractor assess user completion/ proficiency level and the Combat Developer (CBTDEV) verify and validate training content.

Date: 1/13/16

Question/Comment: Is this effort only for sustainment of the current system and baseline?

Response: No, it is for development, concurrency, and sustainment efforts. Upon award, the current system must be maintained from both a SW and HW perspective;

new development will become necessary both in reaction to the changing intelligence environment and depending upon the proposed technical approach for the system design (how CoE will be achieved, or any other benefits realized); and updating existing systems as necessary to incorporate the most recent completed development. (SOW 3.7)

Question/Comment: Can the current system support a conversion to CoE?

Response: With some development, yes. Some aspects are web-based (HCC has a prototype CoE) though it may not be a fully optimized solution. The prototype currently has a mobile device application capability. (SOW 3.2.4.1; 3.7)

Question/Comment: How are operations involved? Is IEWTPT primarily skill maintenance or operations training.

Response: IEWTPT is both - modeling and simulation creates a realistic, virtual environment for MI/ISR task/skill sustainment training using operational toolsets and applications. It allows for target area focus exercises supporting team, crew and IWfF collective and individual training to support MI unit readiness.; IEWTPT is located at home station Mission Training Complexes and/or Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Foundry locations that can remotely train SIGINT via operational JWICS.

(SOW 3.2; 3.2.4; 3.2.6; 3.2.6.5;3.5)

Question/Comment: Is there a transition deadline for CoE?

Response: IEWTPT will need to be compliant in all three COE areas (Cloud, Sensors, Command Post) for COE v3 which is on/about FY19. (SOW 3.2.4.1)

Question/Comment: Is Army training done in a more collective sense or is only intelligence focused on?

Response: IEWTPT is specifically an intelligence trainer, but it does interface with constructive simulations such as JCATS and JLCTCC. The term collective is used in the requirements in reference to multiple intelligence specialties collectively.

IEWTPT enables individual specific task training at the soldier level for a given intelligence military occupational specialty (MOS) (e.g. All Source, HUMINT, GEOINT, SIGINT, etc.) and skill level. IEWTPT also enables Integration of multiple intelligence specialties as collective tasks. Collective training introduces additional skills needed to support the unit’s mission and readiness posture. Collective training requires interactions among individuals or organizations to perform tasks that contribute to the unit’s training objectives and mission-essential task proficiency. IEWTPT ensures that military intelligence personnel have the capability to skillfully conduct intelligence operations within overall Army operations training environment. (SOW 3.2; 3.3.2)

Question/Comment: What are the primary virtual aspects of IEWTPT?

Response: The HCC is the HUMINT virtual training component of IEWTPT. (SOW 1.1)

(SSS 1.2)

Question/Comment: Has RMF been implemented for the fielded systems?

Response: No, DIACAP and DCID 6/3 so far. (SOW 3.1.10.5; 3.2.6.1)

Question/Comment: The solicitation doesn’t list a preference for a location of the SCIF. Would multiple locations for various types of work be appropriate?

Response: Section M states that the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide an appropriate and accredited SCIF ready for use at contract award. Location of the SCIF is not an evaluation factor. NOTE: Unclassified information on a SCIF, when combined with additional information may increase the classification level. NO

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN PROPOSAL. (SOW 3.2.6.4/5)

Question/Comment: The SOW includes task analysis for converting to Cloud.

Response: Please clarify the question or comment, task analysis specific for converting to cloud is not in the SOW.

Question/Comment: What are the top 3 programs for integration?

Response: HQDA G2 and USAICoE/Ft. Huachuca determine priorities, they are fluid and not strict. (SOW 1.0;1.1;3.1.7)

Question/Comment: It is difficult to determine what issues the awardee will inherit from the current contract, example: what are the statuses of RMF vs CoE for this effort?

Response: All systems have been accredited via DIACAP or DCID 6/3 processes, RMF will be necessary for new systems and when fielded systems need to be re-accredited based on expiration of accreditation or major updates to the system. There is an HCC web-based prototype, but the solution is not currently optimized for CoE. Additional information will be made available within the Technical Data Package provided before and at release of the final solicitation. All systems will be fully validated, accredited, and certified and be in operation at fielded sites at award. Maintaining, updating, revising, and producing new documentation for new development will be managed by the awardee. (SOW 3.2.20.5; 3.2.4.1; 3.2.6.1; 3.7)

Question/Comment: Is a SCIF with both JWICS and SPRNET that is shared-use between programs acceptable?

Response: As stated in the SOW and draft solicitation, appropriate partitioning is acceptable assuming justification is provided to ensure there will not be a break in support for IEWTPT due to the shared use. SOW 3.2.6.4 refers to SCIF. See SOW section 3.2.6.5. for JWICS and SSS Section 3.4.3.

Question/Comment: Is the intent for the SCIF to be accredited specifically for IEWTPT at contract award? That does not seem possible.

Response: No, the SCIF to be used immediately after contract award must currently have an active accreditation under an existing effort. (SOW 3.2.6.4)

Question/Comment: Recommend clarification in L&M that offerors will be evaluated on their approach for sustainment of the baseline system, including tech refresh.

Response: Response: L.6.1.1 states “The Offeror shall describe its architecture to support interoperability requirements including constructive simulation data/environments, generating simulation/stimulation data to MI tactical systems through a simulation interface, approach to migrate or upgrade existing capabilities, and developing new capabilities compatible with conducting distributed training operations.”

Question/Comment: Recommend specifically calling out concurrency of tactical systems and sensors in the baseline and cloud implementation.

Response: SOW 3.2.4.2; 3.4 references concurrency requirement. 3.2.4.1.3 references Cloud.

Question/Comment: Please clarify what is meant by the Enclave Bridge.

Response: SOW 1.1 outlines that the IEWTPT Cross-domain Solution (CDS) that allows one-way passage of data from low to high (Secret TCC to TS/SCI TCC) on a dual enclave TCC.

Question/Comment: Please Clarify free-flow conversation requirements, ie soldier to soldier or soldier to machine.

Response: SOW 1.1 explains The HCC utilizes avatars and speech recognition software to support Soldiers and HUMINT/CI collectors in refining and sustaining skills in a virtual environment.

Question/Comment: Will sensor packages be provided as GFE or will the contractor need a separate agreement with OEM?

Response: Government team is working to identify releasable third party software and /or hardware. All contractors should be prepared to make the appropriate arrangements as needed. (SOW 5.0)

Question/Comment: Will the government provide a list of subcomponents (EB and TSA) for integration of sensor packages?

Response: Drawings and system components/subcomponents will be provided at or before the final solicitation release.

Question/Comment: Please clarify what types of platforms the simulation is supposed to connect to.

Response: Figures 1 and 2 in the SSS reference current tactical system interfaces and SOW 1.1 speaks to the constructive simulation training environment requirement.

Question/Comment: Will the Government release details of 2 or 3 recent TCC fieldings to include site survey and other specifics to allow the contractor to better calculate the cost?

Response: The government will release site survey report(s) of the last site surveyed in anticipation of fielding to that location (e.g. Fort Stewart). This document will be released either before or with the final solicitation.