MISTE_Draft_RFP_Responses_to_Industry_04-04-2019_V2.pdf

Item Number RFP Doc Referenced Location Industry Question Industry Concern

Industry Recommendation Government Response

1 General FBO Is the name of the program "Modernizing Instrumentation Solutions for Test and Evaluation" or "Modernizing Instrumentation Systems for Test and Evaluation?" Both are used.

Consistency Please clarify Program Name

The name of the program is "Modernizing Instrumentation Solutions for Test and Evaluation". To be corrected in Solicitation

2 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3, Pg. 7 Wil the government provide specific requirements that define the visual effect required, the ranges of all desired effects and the description of the obscuration required for testing on the

EFC?

This section of the SOW only discusses the development of a TISE solution.

There are no specific details regarding development of an SDC or FDC or AM enhancement. There should be a clear and traceable requirement statement for the high to low range for all desired effects and SCETI ACE subsystems.

Leaving terms like "operationally relevant" and unspecified AM extents of flake size, saturation and other criteria

Clarify requirement Please, refer to MISTE ACE for SDC and FDC performance requirements. SOW will be adjusted to describe development of SDC and FDC and atmospheric measurement support equipment efforts.

3 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.4.5, Pg. 19 Could the Gov't provide a list of Government Furnished Property (GFP)?

Without knowledge of the amount of GFP the contractor is required to manage, it is difficult to bid the hours required for this requirement.

Provide requested information

No GFP has been identified for this requirement.

4 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

1.1, Pg. 2, Para. 3 Can the Government define what site preparations will be in place prior to delivery of the SCETI ACE?

The development of the SDC and FDC on SCETI ACE will require services to the system and subassemblies that are to be provided by the government.

Additionally, there is a requirement that SCETI ACE equipment not impede the free range of motion throughout the entirety of the DVE volume (SCETI ACE Performance Specification 3.2.6 and 3.3.6). In order to ensure the contractor is able to receive the services that may be required and to not interfere with the DVE volume, it is important to know the physical characteristics of the terrain and infrastructure surrounding the DVE in order to develop a compliant solution.

Provide requested information

Offerors will be provided a diagram showing the proposed site layout.

5 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1.1.1, Pg. 6-7 MIL-STD-810G is referenced as a Gov't document, however there are not specific instances to Environmental requirements for snow and fog for MIL-STD- 810G test methods or procedures other than laboratory procedures for salt fog. Could the Gov't clarify MIL-STD-810G applicability with respect to the SDC and

FDC?

Paragraph 5.3 of Part 3 in the subject document are discussed in relation to material design; not obscuration of visibility.

Clarify requirement The FDC- A Fog Taxonomy Study will be made avaliable to all Offerors. SDC- MIL-STD 810G should be used as the basis for projected snow natural environment and to develop the Offeror's technical approach. Additionally, the Government will provide operational boundary conditions for snow and fog in the Perf Spec.

6 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1.3, Pg. 12 What is the current as built state of the SCETI Test Control Center (TCC)? Will the government provide artifacts that document the as built state prior to RFP release?

The ability to control the SCETI ACE subassemblies from the TCC will require the contractor to understand what controls are needed and what measurements are required in the TCC.

There are no descriptive details of the TCC in either the SOW or the Performance Specification.

Provide requested information

The Test Control Center (TCC) layout has no impact on the Offeror's proposed solution and it will not be provided.

7 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1.1.1, Pg. 15 Does the government understand that a design change bid by the contractor is highly probable to change as a result of the Atmospheric Condition Parameter Study? Can the first phase of the contract be a feasibility study and technology assessment? The second phase could leverage that information to then propose on the larger tasks.

Risk in proposed solution to both contractor and Government

Can the first phase of the contract be a feasibility study and technology assessment? The second phase could leverage that information to then propose on the design and implementation of the SCETI ACE. Would the Government consider changing the SCETI ACE DO to CPFF?

Atmospheric Condition Parameter Study has been revised to provide "requirement validation" vice "requirement determination".

8 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

1, Pg. 1 Will the contractor be expected to make enhancements to the other existing capabilities (i.e.

emulated flight capability, test

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Provide requested information

No

9 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.1.1, Pg. 4 SCETI ACE Project Current Schedule: What are the drivers influencing the project schedule? Are there components or subsystems being provided as GFE (such as the Rain Development Capability or TCC) that won’t reach sufficient Operational Capability until the SCETI ACE Delivery Order period of performance can begin? Is the phasing of funding from the resource sponsor driving the current schedule?

Clarification requested to help in development of the SCETI ACE

IMP/IMS

Provide requested information

Currently there are no known drivers affecting the SCETI ACE project schedule. The Government is requesting Offeror's best technical solution for SCETI ACE.

10 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

RFP.pdf

3.2.1.1.1, Pg. 10 What are the existing Atmospheric Measurement (AM) current capabilities and limitations?

Information requested to help bidders understand current SCETI capabilities

Provide requested information

At this time, there are no existing SCETI Atmospheric Measurement capabilities. This Atmospheric Measurement capability will be developed in FY21.

11 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.3, Pg. 13 Will the government provide GFI or Software for the RTC/Aircraft Survivability Equipment Architecture for Test and Evaluation of Hostile Fire aka RATH prior to RFP release?

Information requested to help bidders understand current SCETI capabilities

Provide requested information

No software will be provided to Offerors. The RATH ICD has been provided to the Offerors.

12 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1.1.1, Pg. 10-

After the atmospheric condition parameter study is completed, how will it be determined that those conditions can be replicated satisfactorily in the Huntsville, Alabama environment year-round?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Provide requested information

There is no requirement for year round replication of snow and fog atmospheric effects. The Offerors are to provide the limitations of their proposed solution.

13 ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1.1.1, Pg. 10-

Will information on requirements for the type of instrumentation needed to characterize the environment be added? If not, this requirement will be difficult to cost. In addition, can the Government stipulate what specific atmospheric characteristics are to be measured?

Affects proposed SCETI ACE design on FFP Delivery Order

Clarify requirement Offerors shall propose the composition of their Atmospheric Measurement instrumentation to characterize snow and fog environments.

14 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.11, Pg. 14 Can the Government provide the referenced RTC Base Infrastructure Interface Control Document?

This software architecture is based on the TENA, with plug-ins, real-time control, and rapid processing of test data. RATH code and documentation is be provided to the SCETI ACE contractor. However, the development of a FFP bid for integration of the SDC, FDC and enhanced AM capabilities into the baseline SCETI requires knowledge detailing which of the many TENA middleware and object models is currently being used in the RATH.

Provide requested information

The RATH ICD has been provided to Offerors with the DRAFT RFP and will be included in the FINAL RFP.

15 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

1.2.1, Pg. 6 Since obscuration of visibility is a key tenant of the desired capability, where and how is illumination by natural or artificial methods that would simulate that effect controlled and specified?

Affects SCETI ACE design approach Clarify Requirement Obscuration of visibility is not a requirement for SCETI

ACE.

16 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.1.1.3, Pg. 8 Is it the intent of the government to provide environmental conditions to 16 zones vice 4? How and what levels of isolation are required by specification? For instance: if 1 zone is at elevated temperature and one is at freezing, what level of isolation is specified? Is this isolation preconfigured as zones or stood up ad-hoc as needed? Is the configuration time of separate zones a requirement?

4 zones are specified with independent control as a threshold. However, the minimum division requirement as indicated here would create 16 zones in a 200 foot long by 100 foot wide DVE.

This implies that DVE conditions would have to be developed for 16 independent zones with differing environmental conditions to be generated within these zones.

Clarify requirement There is no requirement to isolate the 4 zones within the test volume. Update to read "4 iterations per day".

17 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.1.2.1, Pg. 9 If the environment is an open field and the test (for example) requires the lowering of temperature and pressure to generate snow or fog, is it the intention of the USG to provide that condition in spite of the ambient open air/open field conditions?

The development of rain, snow and fog environmental conditions within an open DVE must take into account conditions that are not controllable by the contractor. These are local wind, humidity, air pressure, local temperature and existing precipitation at the time of the test. Some of these conditions could preclude the development of desired obscuration for the EFC.

Clarify requirement No, the Offeror is required to provide operational conditions for their technical approach.

18 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.4.4, Pg. 11 Does the government require the creation of blowing snow as part of the basic requirement of the SDC?

What are the required directions of snow generation (vertical/horizontal) & the various wind speeds needed to generate blowing snow?

The parameters study referenced is not due until 6 months after contract award.

MlL-STD-810G Part 3 paragraph 5.3 describes blowing snow in terms of horizontal mass flux of snow particles.

Clarify requirement No, the Offeror is required to provide operational capability for their technical approach.

19 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.5.3, Pg. 12 Will the government provide details outlining the interface requirements to enable monitoring and control communications between the SCETI ACE subassemblies, systems and instrumentation to the RATH?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Provide requested information

The RATH ICD has been provided to Offerors with the DRAFT RFP and will be included in the FINAL RFP

20 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2, Pg. 9 Is an artificial alternative to snow acceptable provided that the alternative meets the government-approved results of the atmospheric conditions parameters study?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement The Government will provide operational boundary condition for snow which will be validated during the Atmospheric Condition Parameter Study. Offeror's proposed solution must meet Government requirements and environmental regulations.

21 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.3, Pg. 10 Is an artificial alternative to fog acceptable provided that the alternative meets the government-approved results of the atmospheric conditions parameters study?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement The Government will provide operational boundary condition for fog which will be validated during the Atmospheric Condition Parameter Study. Offeror's proposed solution must meet Government requirements and environmental regulations.

22 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

1.2.2, Pg. 7 How are capabilities such as the Rain Development Capability “connected” or integrated currently with the Test Control Center?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement The Rain Development Capability has not been designed/developed and therefore the method of connection to the TCC is not yet known.

23 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.7.4, Pg. 12 Will SCETI components be stored under cover and/or in a climate controlled environment or will they be stored uncovered/unsheltered?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement Equipment to be uncovered and unsheltered

24 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.10, Pg. 13 Will a list of items identified in this paragraph (such as Government ground test equipment) be provided prior to RFP release?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement Yes, paragraph 3.10 will be updated. Offeror is to identify Government support equipment and resources such as water, commercial power, etc to effectively support system's operation per design

25 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.6, Pg. 10 Could the Govt define how the EFC Dolly listed in Figure 1.2-1 will travel through the DVE volume to determine where/how the SDC and FDC apparatus and instrumentation can be mounted so as not to impede motion

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement Yes, the Government will provide engineering design documents that will clarify SCETI test area specifications. The Government will update the Performance Specification to provide the area that must not be impeded by snow and fog equipment. .

26 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.1.2.1, Pg. 9 Civil engineering specifications for the facilities permanent infrastructure, water storage, and power interfaces do not appear to be provided. In paragraph 3.1.2.1, it is stated that the SCETI system shall operate in an open field at Redstone Arsenal without pre-existing concrete foundations. Will a drainage system be developed to handle the runoff of excess water after the snow environment melts or the fog vapor condenses?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement Yes, but these factors are not within the scope of the SCETI ACE requirement.

27 ATTACHMENT_07_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SPEC_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

3.2.1, Pg. 9 In reference to filling the entire DVE zone or a specified smaller space in the referenced SDC paragraph, how will the finding of "full" or "filled" be determined?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

Clarify requirement The Atmosheric Measurement equipment will characterize the test volume environment.

28 ATTACHMENT_09_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_SOW.pdf

Unlike Attachment 6, the Government did not provide a notional schedule or need date in the SOW for the TNM EPG. Please provide guidance on need dates or notional schedule for the design and installation.

Please provide guidance if there are any known blackout dates where the facility would not be available for network installation and test.

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Provide requested information

The CLIN structure for TNM EPG will dilineate the delivery date of each deliverable within the DO.

29 ATTACHMENT_09_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_SOW.pdf

3.2.4.2, Pg. 6 Will survey include access to network topology files? This will be required for future development of systems monitoring platform, impacting network modeling, reporting on uptime/performance of network.

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Clarify requirement Yes, after contract award and prior to Site Survey activities.

30 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG Spec.pdf

3, Pg. 8 Is "AES" switch intended to be "EAS"?

Clarification requested Clarify requirement Yes, AES is intended to be EAS. Corrected Performance Specification. .

31 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG Spec.pdf

3.3, Pg. 14 Can diagram 3.4.8 be provided with higher image quality for legibility?

Hard to read diagram Provide higher quality image

Yes, in the FINAL RFP, this diagram will be provided with a higher image quality in new Appendix C of the Performance Specifications.

32 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.9.1.2, Pg. 20 What is the intended link speed between Standard EAS to ADS/ACS?

Conflicting requirements:

3.5.9.2.1 States: EAS requires "Minimum

of two 100GbE with 40GbE backwards compatibility" uplink ports which conflicts with previous statement in section 3.1.1 that EAS uplink is 1/10 GbE. Including 40/100 GbE at EAS does not make sense based on overall network design

Provide requested information

Section 3.1.1 Performance Requirements, Bandwith will be clarified as follows: The TISN-EN Network shall have a bandwidth of: 100Gb at the Layer 3 Core Routers (JT- CE), Distribution Layer 2 devices comprised of 40/100Gb Area Core Switches (ACS) & 10/40Gb Area Distribution Switches (ADS) and Edge Access of 1/10Gb for Edge Access Switches (EAS). Link speeds between EAS to ADS/ACS will be revised accordingly to match the requirements of Section 3.1.1.

33 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.9.2.1, Pg. 21 What is the intended link speed between Small Form Factor EAS to ADS/ACS?

Conflicting requirements:

States SFF EAS requires "Minimum of two 1GbE SFP or SFP+ based uplink ports" and "Capable of full line rate (e.g.

2 x 100GB/s Uplink) when fully loaded"

Clarify requirement Section 3.1.1 Performance Requirements, Bandwith will be clarified as follows: The TISN-EN Network shall have a bandwidth of: 100Gb at the Layer 3 Core Routers (JT- CE), Distribution Layer 2 devices comprised of 40/100Gb Area Core Switches (ACS) & 10/40Gb Area Distribution Switches (ADS) and Edge Access of 1/10Gb for Edge Access Switches (EAS). Link speeds between Small Form Factor EAS to ADS/ACS will be revised accordingly to match the requirements of Section 3.1.1.

34 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.10.3, Pg. 22 Conflicting Requirements:

States ADS requires "24 port 40/100GBASE-X SFP+ (dual-speed 1/100GbE)" for downlink to EAS, which conflicts with title of section which states "10GbE to EASs" as well as section 3.1.1, 1/100 GbE SFP modules do not exist. Can the Government clarify?

Conflicting requirements Clarify requirement Section 3.1.1 Performance Requirements, Bandwith will be clarified as follows: The TISN-EN Network shall have a bandwidth of: 100Gb at the Layer 3 Core Routers (JT- CE), Distribution Layer 2 devices comprised of 40/100Gb Area Core Switches (ACS) & 10/40Gb Area Distribution Switches (ADS) and Edge Access of 1/10Gb for Edge Access Switches (EAS). Link speed modules between EAS to ADS/ACS will be revised accordingly to match the requirements of Section 3.1.1.

35 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.10.3, Pg. 22 Are 1 GbE interfaces required on ADS to support legacy and/or SFF EAS uplinks? If so, how many?

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Clarify requirement Yes, Specification will be revised to include this requirement for ten total.

36 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.11, Pg. 23 How many downlink interfaces are required for the High and Low-Density ACS?

States "There shall be two (2) types of ACS, a high-density and a low-density one" but does not specify what type/number of interfaces are required

Clarify requirement Specification will be revised to include 40 downlink ports for High-Density ACS and 20 downlink ports for Low- Density ACS.

37 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.11.3, Pg. 23 1 - What is the intended link speed between ACS and

ADS?

2 - What is the intended link speed between ACS and EAS (Standard)?

3 - What is the intended link speed between ACS and

EAS (SFF)?

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Clarify requirement Section 3.1.1 Performance Requirements, Bandwith will be clarified as follows: The TISN-EN Network shall have a bandwidth of: 100Gb at the Layer 3 Core Routers (JT- CE), Distribution Layer 2 devices comprised of 40/100Gb Area Core Switches (ACS) & 10/40Gb Area Distribution Switches (ADS) and Edge Access of 1/10Gb for Edge Access Switches (EAS). Link speed between ACS and ADS is 40Gb. Link speed between ACS and EAS (standard) is 10Gb. Link speed between ACS and EAS (SFF) is 10Gb.

38 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.11.3, Pg. 23 Conflicting requirements:

conflicts with title statement of 10 GbE as well overall intent of 40/100 GbE speed at distribution layer per section 3.1.1. Additionally there are no specifics on the type/number of interfaces required. Can the Government please clarify?

Conflicting requirements Clarify requirement Yes, Section 3.1.1 Performance Requirements, Bandwith will be clarified as follows: The TISN-EN Network shall have a bandwidth of: 100Gb at the Layer 3 Core Routers (JT-CE), Distribution Layer 2 devices comprised of 40/100Gb Area Core Switches (ACS) & 10/40Gb Area Distribution Switches (ADS) and Edge Access of 1/10Gb for Edge Access Switches (EAS). Link speed between ACS and ADS is 40Gb. Link speed between ACS and EAS (standard) is 10Gb. Link speed between ACS and EAS (SFF) is 10Gb. Specification will be revised accordingly.

39 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.5.12.3, Pg. 24 1 - What is the intended link speed between L2BS and

ACS?

2 - Does L2BS require downlink interfaces to ADS or

EAS?

Conflicting requirements Clarify requirement Link speed between L2BS and ACS is 100Gb. L2BS does not require downlink interfaces to ADS or EAS.

Specification will be revised accordingly.

40 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.6, Pg. 25 Which performance parameters will be measured in order to define the optimal utilization and bandwidth usage, can we assume jitter, delay and packet loss?

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Clarify requirement The Network Monitoring System (NMS) shall have inherent functionality to monitor bandwith usage and optimal utilization. As stated, jitter, delay and packet loss are parameters that this software uses for optimal utilization and bandwidth usage.

41 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG_Spec.pdf

3.1.3 and 3.3, Pg.

What is the current network availability? Is it “four nines” as described in paragraph 3.1.3? This is important since inside of building fiber, cable plant, etc. is required to be used by the contractor as part of the solution per paragraph 3.3.

Information requested will affect proposed TNM EPG solution

Clarify requirement Current network availability cannot be determined since the Network Monitoring System (NMS) does not have this capability. The government understands the constraints imposed by the existing fiber and cable plant.

The SOW includes identification of these shortfalls which can be performed under separate future MISTE Delivery Orders. The end goal is to achieve a modernized network meeting the requirements of these specifications.

42 ATTACHMENT_10_

MISTE_DO_TNM_E

PG Spec.pdf

General Comment. Please add page numbers to the body of the performance spec.

No page numbers on specification Add page numbers Concur. Page numbers will be added to the Specification.

43 ATTACHMENT_13_

MISTE_VOL_IV_CO

ST_AND_PRICE_B

ASELINE

It appears as if 1% annual escalation is applied in Attachment 13 for Material and Travel but not to ODC.

Please clarify.

Unclear if ODC is escalated Clarify requirement Disregard the escalation. These dollar amounts are government estimates (i.e, plug numbers) which will be established as Not To Exceed amounts. ODCs, Materials and proposed Travel Costs will be evaluated at the delivery order level. The offeror shall identify their indirect burdens and proposed fee, as applicable, applied to these NTE amounts

44 ATTACHMENT_13_

MISTE_VOL_IV_CO

ST_AND_PRICE_B

ASELINE

all tabs Do the material, ODC, and travel NTEs in each year tab of Attachment 13 reflect the governments estimate of the actual amounts, or the amounts provided just for evaluation?

Please confirm that all amounts in Attachment 13 are at fully burdened cost before fee.

Bidders need to understand how Attachment will be evaluated

Clarify requirement These dollar amounts are Government estimates which will be established as NTE amounts for the Base contract. ODCs, Materials and proposed Travel Costs will be evaluated at the delivery order level. NTE amounts are to be inclusive of all burdens and fees.

45 ATTACHMENT_18_

MISTE_DO_SCETI-

ACE_CLIN_STRUC

TURE.pdf

A00F, Pg. 15 Will the government verify that there will be several submissions of CDRL A00F COTS Manuals and Associated Supplemental Data?

Block 10 of CDRL A00F for SCETI ACE indicates a frequency of 1Time/R yet Block 16 indicates that subsequent submissions will be required.

Clarify requirement The intent was if the snow and fog effort was done separately, then COTS manuals would be submitted twice, once for snow and once for fog.

46 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.1.2.4, Pg. 116 Are bidders required to provide DI-MGMT-80227, Contractors Progress, Status and Management Report, and DI-MGMT-8223, Contractor’s Data Management Plan (CDMP) with the proposal submission? Please clarify. Is the intent to only include the requirements for these CDRLs in the SOW?

Clarification requested Clarify requirement DI-MGMT-8223 is required to be submitted with the Offeror's proposal. DI-MGMT-80227 is a post-award requirement that is included in the proposed SOW.

Updated Section L.1.2.4

47 Draft_MISTE_RFP C., Pg. 129 Technical subfactor 1.1 is not a Delivery Order. Should be technical subfactors 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

Believe this is a typo. Correct for accuracy Agreed, updated to "1.2, 1.3, and 1.4"

48 Draft_MISTE_RFP M.1.3.2, Pg. 130 Section 3.2.4 does not exist in the MISTE Base SOW.

Please correct reference.

Believe this is a typo. Correct for accuracy Agreed, updated to "MISTE SOW section 3.4.2..."

49 Draft_MISTE_RFP M.2.4, Pg. 134 The requirement for Past Performance references to be relevant to manufacturing of major and minor test instrumentation with yearly throughput of $100M seems overly restrictive.

Recommend changing to:

Past performance references will be evaluated and rated based the extent to which references are relevant to the efforts of the same scope (manufacturing and integration of complex electronic, electro-mechanical, and mechanical systems), magnitude (yearly anticipated throughput, dollar value of approximately $100M represented by 3-4 individual Delivery Orders and IDIQ nature of the contract) and complexity of the MISTE

There have been few test instrumentation contracts of the magnitude referenced over the last three year.

Consider changing requirement.

Removed $100M/year requirement for past efforts and reworded language in L.1.2.4 and M.1.2.4. Incorporated language to allow additional references of other manufacturing Past Performance.

50 Draft_MISTE_RFP M.4.7, Pg. 136 Can the Government define CAPs? Is this in acronym or is it meant to state that the CPFF and FFP rates will be capped based on the rates submitted by bidders for each year?

Unclear, Please define CAPs. A rate cap is the fully burdened labor rate (including fee) that is fixed/negotiated at time of award for the entire term of the contract for each year.

51 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.1.c Front matter (Exec Sum, Cross Reference, TOC) is limited to 10 pages. Although these 10 pages are not counted in the page total have they been included in the 150 page total for Technical Volume?

Please clarify total page counts for Technical Volume.

Page counts don’t add up to the Technical Volume allocated 150 pages:

Section A - Manufacturing (20 pages + 20 pages for QPP) = 40 pages

Section B - TISE and Program Management = 60 pages

Section C - SCETI ACE = 20 pages

Section D - TNM EPG = 20 pages

Total is 140 pages

Clarify page counts for Volume I

Agreed, updated to correct page counts to 120 pages

52 Draft_MISTE_RFP

ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

ATTACHMENT_06_

MISTE_DO_SCETI_

ACE_SOW_DRAFT

_RFP.pdf

General The SCETI ACE Performance Spec and Statement of Work provide no insight or information related to the current base SCETI OTA effort. No details are provided on the base system architecture, infrastructure, or current overall design for SCETI. An unfair competitive advantage may exist if the prime contractor for the base OTA SCETI effort is bidding or teaming on MISTE and has exclusive access to current as-built or as-designed details on the base SCETI system. Will the government provide all bidders the existing design artifacts generated to date for the SCETI OTA effort (requirements documents, preliminary and detail design data, interface specifications, etc )?”

Insufficient data provided on SCETI OTA base effort to allow for accurate proposal for SCETI ACE effort as a FFP Delivery Order

Provide all bidders the existing design artifacts generated to date for the SCETI OTA effort (requirements documents, preliminary and detail design data, interface specifications, etc.)

The Government released the interface specification documents with Draft RFP upon request and will do so again with the RFP. Yes, the Government plans to provide SCETI OTA site preparation engineering design documents that will clarify SCETI-ACE test area specifications. The current OTA design documents are not relevant to snow and fog development systems because these systems can operate standalone or software controlled. The government has conducted OCI analysis and concluded that there is no OCI risk to industry, all relevant design documents will be provided to potential bidders.

53 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.1.c, Pg. 110 There is no L.1.2.5 in the Draft RFP. Please correct the reference.

Typo? Correct for accuracy Agreed, updated to 1.2.4 where appropriate throughout the Solicitation

54 Draft_MISTE_RFP L, Pg. 111 Volume V Solicitation and Administrative Requirements in the chart contains two areas marked as Section D.

The first is obviously Section C. Request the government make the correction?

Typo? Correct for accuracy Volume V has been corrected alphabetically for topic matter. Section L, A.1.c Table has also been corrected

55 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.4.7, Pg. 124 Does the Government plan to provide a format and instructions for the content of the Labor Cross Reference Matrix?

Unclear instructions for completing the cross reference matrix

Provide format and instructions

No, Offeror's format is acceptable for a labor cross reference matrix

56 Draft_MISTE_RFP (v) VOLUME V –

SOLICITATION

AND

ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS

Section D, Pg. 127

Since future PM requirements can not be determined for future unknown DO requirements, will the government reconsider the restriction on adding PM resources as new DO's are awarded?

Since each DO SOW also has PM requirements, how do bidders address the PM requirements in each DO

SOW?

This may result in under utilized initial PMO and significant risk to the government in future years where there could be multiple simultaneous DO's in execution.

Consider revising requirement or providing additional guidance to bidders

Program Management requirements have been updated in Section L.1.2.

57 Draft_MISTE_RFP Section M, Pg. 129 Did the Government intend to make Technical Subfactors 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 awardable DO's instead of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3?

Typo? Correct for accuracy Yes. Will be corrected in Solicitation.

58 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.4.5, Pg. 123 RFP States "Offerors shall not propose CLIN pricing for Section B of the base IDIQ".

No separate Attachment is provided for the TISE and Program Management Delivery Order. Are the CLINs in the main RFP documents the CLINs to propose for the TISE and Program Management D.O.?

Clarification requested Clarify requirement TISE and PM CLIN structure will be provided with FINAL

RFP.

59 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.1.2.4, Pg. 116 Are completed 1423s required as part of the Contract Data Requirements List? Completed 1423s would use substantial page count.

Clarification requested Clarify requirement. If actual DD1423's are required, can they be excluded from the page count?

The 1423's required by this subfactor are included in the 60 page count

60 Draft_MISTE_RFP L.1.c, Pg. 110 There are many items to be referenced, can the Cross Reference Matrix be excluded from page limits?

Typically these items, especially TOC and Cross Reference, only help the government find and understand information in bidder's proposal, why limit them and have them compete for space with the executive summary?

Consider exempting Cross reference matrix and TOC from 10 page limit.

Up-to ten pages of the Cross Reference Matrix will be excluded from the page count. To be corrected in Solicitation.

Attachment 07

MISTE DO SCETI

ACE Spec

Page 9, Section 3.2

SCETI shall generate operationally relevant DVE snowfall conditions at the SCETI site at RTC that match conditions identified in the atmospheric conditions parameters study conducted by the contractor and agreed to by the Government.

Request that the Government provide the standard of measure for what quantifies achieving a degraded visual environment with snowfall conditions.

The Government needs our response in a consistent standard of measure. If not provided, there may be solutions that do not meet the standard.

The Offerors shall use MIL-STD 810G as guidance to develop technical approach for snow. Suggest to include limitations, assumptions, and details of technical approach to meet performance specification.

Attachment 07

MISTE DO SCETI

ACE Spec

Page 9, Section 3.2.4

The requirement states the SDC shall reset and be ready for test within 15 minutes after test completion. What constitutes a "reset" of the SDC Capability?

A reset definition is required to correctly scope this technical effort.

Government will update SOW Para 3.2.4 in the final RFP

Attachment 07

MISTE DO SCETI

ACE Spec

Page 10, Section 3.2.6

The requirement states the SDC design shall not impede the motion of the Emulated Flight Capability (EFC) throughout the entirety of the DVE volume. Request that the Government provide details on the Emulated Flight Capability.

Details on the EFC are needed to correctly scope this technical effort.

The SDC will provide DVE snow environment within the DVE volume, knowing the EFC operational characteristics is not relevant; the SDC must create the snow environment within the planned flight volume ensuring instrumentation is outside of the EFC flight path. This will avoid the EFC colliding with the snow generating equipment.

Attachment 07

MISTE DO SCETI

ACE Spec

Page 11, Section 3.4.4, 3.4.5

3.4.4 requires the capability to "measure" snow characteristics, while 3.4.5 requires capability to "identify" fog characteristics.

What is the difference between "measure" and "identify"?

Definitions of measure and identify are needed to ensure the AM requirements are met.

Perf Spec Section 3.4.4, 3.4.5 will be updated to include "measure" on both. The term "identify" will be deleted.

Attachment 07

MISTE DO SCETI

ACE Spec

Page 13, Section 3.9

The requirement states the SCETI ACE shall be designed to utilize existing Government ground test equipment, Government test capabilities, Government support equipment, and Government and commercial off-the-shelf equipment to the extent practical.

Where can the Offeror obtain a list of existing Government ground test equipment, Government test capabilities, Government support equipment, and Government and commercial off-the-shelf equipment?

Additional information on Government ground test equipment, test capabilities, support equipment, GOTS and COTS equipment in use is needed to correctly scope this technical effort.

Current requirement detailed in Performance Specification Para 3.10 will be removed

MISTE DRFP Pg 115 and 117

Both pages reference CDRLs identified under L.1.2.5.

There is no section L.1.2.5 in the document. Please confirm these reference should refer to L.1.2.4.

Clarification on the correct CDRL references is needed.

Confirmed and removed L.1.2.5 from Section L

MISTE DRFP

Page 124, Section L4, Attachment A/13

Is the submitted Attachment A in the proposal response the completed Attachment 13?

Clarification on how to use Attachment 13 is needed to ensure a compliant cost proposal.

Clarify if Attachment A is the completed Attachment 13.

Yes, Volume V Attachment A is referring to completing Section J Attachment 13

MISTE DRFP Attachment 13

Are the instructions provided in cell H12 pertaining to the completion of Attachment C?

Also, the instructions state that 1% escalation is added to ODC and Travel. Should the values for ODCs calculate a 1% escalation in Year 2 similar to Material and Travel? Do these instructions pertain to the pricing of ODC, Travel and Material for the Delivery Orders?

Treatment of Material, Travel and ODC cost are inconsistent or not clearly stated in regard to indirect rates and escalation.

Provide updated instructions to clarify the escalation of Material, Travel, and ODCs.

These dollar amounts are Government estimates which will be established as NTE amounts for the Base contract. ODCs, Materials and proposed Travel Costs will be evaluated at the delivery order level. NTE amounts are to be inclusive of all burdens and fees.

ATTACHMENTS 19-

Will the Government allow additional time to review recently released RFP Attachments 19-27 and extend the Question period to March 22.

Significant information is contained in the recently received Attachments 19-27 and need to reviewed and assessed by Offerors.

Recommend the government extend the question submittal timeframe to account for review of requested additional documents.

No need for an extension, the Government believes potential Offeror's will have ample time to review all DRFP requirements prior to release of FINAL SOLICITATION. Additionally, offerrors will have another opportunity to submitt questions after final RFP is issued and before it closes.

Attachment 01 - MISTE Base SOW page 16, 3.5.6

Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) - The Base SOW states all CS products and CS-enabled products shall be certified compliant with CNSSP-11 by labs accredited under the National IA Partnership Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme or NIST Federal Information Processing Standards Cryptographic Module Validation Program.

(1) Will all the GOTS provided to the Offeror be pre-certified? (2) If the GOTS is not pre-certified per CNSSP- 11, will there be any AQL exceptions or schedules shifts allowed for delays not under the Offeror's control?

Additional information on pre-certification needed to respond to the solicitation.

Exceptions should be clearly specified for situations not under the control of the Offeror.

It is up to the offeror to design and select components that meet the Cybersecurity requirements as specified by individual DOs. Specific GOTS questions should be referred to individual DOs. In gereral, the Offeror has full control to develop systems using COTS or GOTS and the Government does not foresse allowing AQL exceptions or schedule shifts.

Attachment 01 - MISTE Base SOW page 16, 3.5.6

GOTS CS products or CS-enabled products employed by the system shall be evaluated by the National Security Agency (NSA) or IAW NSA-approved processes.

(1) Will all the GOTS provided to the Offeror be pre-evaluated or NSA approved?

(2) If the GOTS is not pre-evaluated or NSA approved, will there be any AQL exceptions or schedules shifts allowed for delays not under the Offeror's control?

Additional information on pre-evaluation needed to respond to the solicitation.

Exceptions should be clearly specified for situations not under the control of the Offeror.

It is up to the offeror to design and select components that meet the Cybersecurity requirements as specified by individual DOs. Specific GOTS questions should be referred to individual DOs. In gereral, the Offeror has full control to develop systems using COTS or GOTS and the Government does not foresse allowing AQL exceptions or schedule shifts. But this will be determined on a delivery order by delivery order and case by case basis.

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Table 1 Performance Measure #1

Contractor maintain 100% inspection (minimum 4x annually)

If a minimum of 4 inspections are customer dependent and the customer is unable to participate in the scheduled inspections, will schedule corrections be allowed?

Will the Government please confirm inspection timeline (e.g. 1 per quarter)?

If an inspection has to be rescheduled due to customer availability, the Offeror will want to ensure exceptions to schedule or delivery impacts are specified and they are not held accountable for delays not under our control.

Specify the timeline for the 4 minimum inspections annually (e.g. 1 per quarter).

The Government anticipates 1 inspection per quarter.

The Government will ensure advanced notice of an upcoming inspection and does not anticipate any negative schedule or delivery impacts on the Offeror.

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Table 1 Performance Measure #2

100% Acceptance of CDRLs Will the customer method for CDRL Acceptance be defined?

Need to ensure AQL 100% is not affected due to delayed acceptance response from customer

Clearly define CDRL acceptance to address potential response delays

The Government will provide email notification that a CDRL has been accepted or rejected or accepted with comments (requiring minor correction) according to the terms established within each CDRL

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Table 1 Performance Measure #3

Contractor maintains adherence to IMP/IMS SOW 3.4.2; Contractor maintains 100% schedule adherence demonstrated on all DOs.

Will there be exceptions to milestone delays due to late or defective GFE or GFI receipts?

Exceptions to milestone delays due to either GFE or GFI delay requested.

Exceptions to milestone delays due to either GFE or GFI delay are specified to prevent adverse schedule or delivery impact.

The Government will consider the impact to schedules or milestonesbased on delays in their receiving GFE or GFI. This will reviewed situationally and the degree of delay will also be evaluated. For example, a day-for-day slip impact.

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Table 1 Performance Measure #5

No customer complaints with high levels of satisfaction reported. Contractor has established positive working relationship with Government customer that is maintained.

Will the Government provide the definition of "High levels of satisfaction".

"High Levels" satisfaction definition needed to assess requirement.

Need to define "High Levels" satisfaction reported

See FAR 42.15. "High Levels" of satisfaction would be indicated by the definitions in the range of Very Good or Exceptional categories. Quality assurance requirements will be itentified within individual Delivery Order's QASP.

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Table 1 Performance Measures

Areas of concern/ dissatisfaction are resolved to the Government’s satisfaction within 15 business days and maintained.

Does "resolved" mean, the contractor will provide a response to customer with immediate containment actions and a corrective action plan to prevent recurrence or completely corrected/closed?

Exceptions will need to be identified to address items that cannot be resolved within 15 business days.

Provide clear definition of "resolved" that covers contractor and Government roles

Government will update the QAP to Offeror submitting an acceptable corrective action plan within 15 calendar days.

Attachment 04 -

MISTE QAP

Performance Measures

Exceeding 100% performance standards and AQLs is very challenging.

Several Performance Standards and AQLs are of 100% and it is unclear how we could exceed a 100% performance measurement.

Would the Government please elaborate on how the offeror can exceed performance for these AQLs?

Ambiguity associated with definition of "exceeding 100%" establish clear threshold/objective AQL

There is one critical performance measure associated with schedule adherence that has an AQL of 100%. An Offeror could exceed a 100% AQL on schedule adherence if they delivered early.

MISTE Base SOW page 9, Section 3.3.1.1

Is there a recovery timeline applicable to unexpected loss of program data due to environmental disasters, operator error, equipment failure, and hostile intruders (or is Offeror to specify the recovery timelines)?

Offerors need context with respect to expectations

Offeror should propose recovery timelines. Recovery timelines may be evaluated by the Government as a part of the overall TISE solution.

MISTE DRAFT RFP

Page 133/134, Section M.2.2, M2.4

M2.2 states "A past performance confidence rating will be assigned for the collective, recent and relevant submissions of the Offeror." Can the Government confirm "collective" applies to demonstrating $100M in manufacturing capacity, and additional surge capacity, as described in L2.1/M 2.4? I.e., each reference does not need to meet the $100M/Year threshold but the references as a whole need to demonstrate the Offerors ability to meet a anticipated throughput of $100M year.

Collective past performance of $100M/year demonstrates significant manufacturing capability, meeting the MISTE requirement, and allows the optimal competitive field for the Government.

Confirm $100M/Year as a measure of magnitude in Past Performance applies to the collective submission of Past Performance references.

Removed $100M/year requirement for past efforts and reworded language in L.1.2.4 and M.1.2.4. Incorporated language to allow additional references of other manufacturing Past Performance.

MISTE DRAFT RFP Page 129, Section M.C (note)

This note says that tech subfactors 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are each awardable DOs, but that doesn't align with TISE, SCETI and TNM.

The wrong subfactors are references

Change to say subfactors 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

Changed to subfactors 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

MISTE Draft RFP/Attachment 13

Pg 122 Sec L.4.3, Cost workbook

Will the Government provide labor category descriptions (skills, experience, education) so the Offeror can properly compensate/price labor categories?

Without lab cat descriptions we will not have an accurate ability to assess the skills, experience and education required

Provide labor category descriptions

Government will update Labor Category descriptions in Attachment 13

MISTE Draft RFP/Attachment 13

Page 124, Section L4.7 Item i/Attachment 13

Are there hours associated with the rates because we are capping each labor category's cost ceiling?

Without knowing what labor categories are going to be used on each DO, there is no reason to cap them at that level

Remove the hours for each labor category

Hours depicted on Attachment 13 are non-binding anticipated hours.

Attachment 13 Attachment 13

Are the NTE values for materials, travel and ODC plug numbers to be left in place?

Understanding of the NTE numbers in the Attachment 13 workbook

Clarify use of NTE numbers

Yes, these are "plug" numbers based on Governmnent estimates.

MISTE DRAFT RFP

Page 117/134, Sections L.2.1, M2.4

Can the Government confirm that individual contracts as well as IDIQs can be used for the collective $100M/year throughput requirement?

Relevant manufacturing efforts include contracts as well as IDIQ Delivery Orders.

Update the definition of magnitude in L.2.1 and M.2.4 to include contracts as will as IDIQ Delivery orders.

Updated L.2.4 and M.2.4. Removed the $100M/year throughput requirement.

MISTE DRAFT RFP

Page 117/134, Sections L.2.1, M2.4

Can the Government confirm that the manufacturing past performance references should address the diverse technology areas required to support the Test Instrumentation Systems Enterprise?

Relevant manufacturing efforts are not limited to the manufacturing of test instrumentation.

Modify scope definition in L.2.1 and M2.4 to include technology areas required to support

TISE.

Confirmed, not limitted to the manufacturing of test instrumentation.

MISTE DRAFT RFP Page 33, Section I FAR Clause 52.243-1, AUG

1987 is listed twice. Admin Correction Remove duplicate clause.

Will delete duplicate

MISTE DRAFT RFP Page 32, Section I FAR Clause 52-232.40, DEC

2013 is listed twice Admin Correction Remove duplicate clause.

Will delete duplicate

MISTE DRAFT RFP Pg 115, Section L.1.2.1

The Draft RFP states "The offeror shall propose a MISTE TISE concept of operations that complies with the MISTE Base SOW Sections 1 and 1.3." Should the second SOW reference (SOW 1.3) be 3.1?

Want to ensure the TISE solution covered the applicable sections of the

BASE SOW

Update L.1.2.1 to include SOW 3.1.

Government updated appropriate SOW sections. SOW Sections 1.3, and 3.0 (including subsections) are the MISTE Base SOW references

MISTE DRAFT RFP

page 110-111, L.1.c (Volume V in Table)

The Sections listed in the Table for Volume V do not include the Section D Statement of Compliance or Section F. Property Management Plan. These sections appear on page 127 when describing the section details of Volume V. Please confirm these sections are required in Volume V.

Ensuring all elements of Volume V are clearly communicated to Offeror's

Update Table in L.1.c to reflect all sections in Volume V.

Volume V has been corrected alphabetically for topic matter. Section L, A.1.c Table has also been corrected

MISTE DRAFT RFP page 110, Section L.1.C

The maximum page allocations for Volume I do not appear to allocate all 150 pages of the Volume. Can the Government confirm the allocation of the 150 pages against the NTEs of sections in Volume I?

The NTEs of the Sections in Volume 1 sum 140 pages -…