p€¦ · web viewresponses shall be submitted in an editable/executable (not scanned) word/adobe...

Request for Solutions:Digital Generation (DGEN) Subsystem Development and

Integration (SDI) Prototype Project28 May 2020

1. Purpose and AuthorityThis Request for Solutions (RFS) is issued on behalf of Naval Air Warfare Systems Command (NAVAIR) who desires to identify and select capable vendors that can further advance its capabilities in the areas of electronic threat simulation and measurement focusing specifically on advances in the areas of system concept, architecture development, and requirements definition. The overall goal is to meet the increasingly critical needs for current and future Department of Defense (DOD) aircraft, which contain electronic combat support systems. To achieve this goal, NAVAIR is developing a new simulator program called NEWEG, which consists of a single configurable set of unclassified subsystems. The collection contains one Scenario Simulation and Control (SSC) subsystem, one or more DGEN subsystems, one or more Radio Frequency Generation (RFGEN) subsystems, and a Measurement and Analysis (MAA) subsystem. NEWEG is currently being developed in two Blocks: A and B. The DGEN system will be developed, demonstrated and assessed as part of Block B. The unclassified DGEN prototype project will focus on the continued development and testing of the DGEN subsystem.

The objective of the DGEN SDI prototype project is to adapt and expand previous research, development, and initial proof-of-principle prototyping conducted by NAVAIR to date. The DGEN prototype project will design, develop, fabricate, assemble, integrate, and test variants of the initial proof-of-principle DGEN prototype capability. Specifically, the DGEN prototype project will develop and demonstrate specific aircraft, mission, and location tailored variants of NEWEG DGEN subsystem capabilities that will receive commands and data from the SSC and translate the simulated environment into a stream of Pulse Descriptor Words (PDW). The DGEN prototype will perform all pulse-to-pulse calculations required to generate a complex emitter environment in real-time for up to eight Million Pulses Per Second (MPPS). These calculations will include modeling the emitter waveform, applying the transmit antenna gain, and applying the radio frequency (RF) propagation, model. The emitter model will generate the PDW relative to the center of rotation of the System Under Test (SUT). In addition to creating PDWs, the DGEN prototype will also be responsible for recording and replaying the PDWs that it creates. Finally, the DGEN prototype will be required to stream third-party PDWs while generating PDWs internally.

The tailored aircraft, mission, and location variant design and development tasks associated with the DGEN prototype project will be tested (demonstrated and assessed) with NEWEG systems at different DOD locations to include, but not limited to: (1) Air Station ASIL facility, Patuxent River NAS, MD, (2) Atlantic Test Range Facility, Patuxent River NAS, MD, (3) Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF), Edwards AFB, CA, (4) Electronic Combat Simulation and Evaluation Laboratory, NBVC Pt. Mugu, CA, (5) Electronic Combat Range, NAS China Lake, CA, and (6) JPRIMES facility, Eglin AFB, FL.

of 23

1

2

3

4

5

67891011121314151617181920

21222324252627282930313233343536

37383940414243

The graph below illustrates the operational view (OV) of the NEWEG and each subsystem to include the DGEN prototype.

2. Summary and Background

2.1. OverviewThe DGEN subsystem is responsible for describing a set of waveforms that will be received by a system under test (SUT) from many emitters in a simulated radio frequency (RF) environment. Emitters may be stationary or moving radars, communications, or other EW transmitters. The DGEN subsystem receives commands and data from the SSC according to the NEWEG Interface Design Description (IDD). It translates the programmed environment into digital pulse descriptor words (PDW) in a format specified by the DGEN-RFGEN Interface Control Document (ICD). It performs all pulse-to-pulse calculations required to generate a complex emitter environment in real-time (e.g., applying environmental, atmospheric, and other propagation effects and losses to each pulse). The DGEN handles the calculating and scheduling of pulsed descriptor waveforms for up to 8 million pulses per second (MPPS) for pulsed and modulations for non-pulsed signals by directly interpreting Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming Database (EWIRDB) Standard EWIR Reference Format (SERF) and Waveform Descriptor Word (WDW) files. The DGEN calculates each PDW from the emitter to the SUT Center of rotation and transmits up to 8 MPPS to the RFGEN subsystem via an Ethernet fiber.

The DGEN subsystem consists of an Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard 19 in electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielded cabinet housing, the Advanced Modular

of 23

4445

464748

49505152535455565758596061626364

6566

Pulsed Simulator (AMPS) Server(s), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) board housed within each AMPS Server, interface and timing hardware, a data recorder, and an uninterruptable power supply. Each AMPS has the processing capability to generate waveforms from non-reactive (Level-1) and reactive emitters (Level-2, -3) simultaneously. Level-1 emitters are modeled in real-time using the VIPER FPGA board and Level-2,-3 emitters are modeled in software using real-time Keystone. The AMPS Server is an end-to-end PDW generator that is capable of storing up to 5,000 emitters and modeling 1,024 Level-1 and 13 Level-2,-3 simultaneous emitters, and generating 2 MPPS with high-fidelity propagation effects. To reach higher emitter counts and pulse densities, AMPS units are stacked within the DGEN cabinet. A complete AMPS unit consists of a server blade with a graphics-processing unit (GPU) and a VIPER FPGA board. The VIPER board is a standard Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) board in the same form factor as a GPU. It contains a Xilinx Virtex-7 FPGA. It provides up to 12 10Gb Ethernet links. This board serves as the primary connection point to the RFGEN PDW bus.

The DGEN system, because of its modularity, can be configured with a single AMPS system and can be extended up to 4 AMPS. This modularity allows a system’s emitter/pulse density to increase through the addition of these AMPS and minor cabling. Another optional DGEN capability is antenna port processing. Currently, DGEN itself calculates the parameters of the received RF pulse at a single SUT reference point. By adding another server, that response can be extended out to every SUT antenna port. Note, this server is simply the AMPS server configured with different software and firmware. Note, the table below provides insight to DGEN’s scalability.

System # Emitters (Level-1/Level-2-3) # Pulses (MPPS) SUT RF References

Base DGEN 1024/13 2 1 Reference Point

Full DGEN 4096/52 8 1 Reference Point

DGEN + 1024/13 0.5 Each Antenna Port

Table 1 DGEN Scalability

Primary DGEN operation is done through the SSC. The only user interface with the DGEN subsystem is via the Standalone Controller GUI. This GUI is a Web page connected to a Web server available on the DGEN subsystem. The Web server hosts HTTP/HTTPS services in sync with current HTTP/HTTPS standards, and the user requests a Web page, which is served by the RTI Web Integration Service. The RTI Web Integration service executes on the Master AMPS server. The communication architecture is based on Data Distribution Service (DDS) Publish and Subscribe paradigm, where the data writers are used to publish data, and data readers are used to subscribing to data. To establish communication with the DGEN subsystem, the Web server is integrated with DDS.

3. General information

3.1. Training and Readiness Accelerator (TReX)Vendors interested in responding to this RFS must be members of TReX or teamed with a TReX member. Information about membership can be found on the following

of 23

676869707172737475767778798081

8283848586878889

90

91

9293949596979899100101102103104105

106107

webpage: https://nstxl.org/membership/. This project will be managed and supervised by the Integrated Battlespace Simulation and Testing (IBST) program management team.

All Government participants and advisors in the evaluation process will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

The Government will evaluate the solutions with the intent of awarding an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) in accordance with 10 U.S. Code § 2371b

3.2. Allowable Costs and TeamingAn individual vendor may not submit more than one comprehensive response to this RFS as a Prime. A vendor may participate as a sub-vendor to multiple responses. The cost of preparing and submitting a response is not considered an allowable direct charge to any Government contract or agreement. Non-compliance with the submission instructions provided herein may preclude the vendor from being considered for award.

3.3. Non-Government AdvisorsThis is to advise you that non-Government advisors will assist in the evaluation. The use of non-Government advisors will be strictly controlled. Non-Government advisors will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) prior to working on the DGEN effort. Agreements Officer will review NDAs for conflict prior to allowing access to source selection information.

All non-Government advisors will only have access to the information corresponding to their area(s) of expertise. Advisors will not have access to the Price Volume of the response. The companies identified herein have agreed not to engage in the manufacture or production of hardware/services/R&D that is related to this effort, and to refrain from disclosing proprietary information to unauthorized personnel.

The following companies will have non-Government personnel advising:

Deloitte Consulting, LLP.22454 Three Notch Rd, Suite 202Lexington Park, MD 20653CAGE Code: ITTG5

4. GFI/GFE/GFPThe Government will make available the following DGEN SDI Government Furnished Information (GFI):

1. Attachment #1 – System Requirements Specification (SRS) for the Next Generation Electronic Warfare Environment Generator (NEWEG) Block B, 29 May 2014

2. Attachment #2 – DGEN-RFGEN Interface Control Document (ICD), 30 July 2019 Version 1.02

3. Attachment #3 – Interface Design Description (IDD) for Next Generation Electronic Warfare Environment Generator (NEWEG), 30 July 2018

of 23

108109110

111112

113114115116117118119120121122123

124125126127128

129130131132133

134135136137138139

140

141142143144145146147148149150151

The GFI will contain the Distribution D. The TReX member/team will require processing and approval before being authorized to receive any project exhibits to include GFE/GFI, such as technical documentation, software, data packages, etc. All exhibits will be considered “As Is” upon being transferred.

To obtain the GFE/GFI documentation , the vendor shall submit a request in writing to [email protected], with “DGEN SDI GFI” used in the subject line along with the required information as outlined in the Security Process for Vetting Vendors, Attachment 7 and the Vendor GFI Tech Data Distribution Agreement, Attachment 8. The Distribution Agreement will provide further guidance regarding the handling of GFI after OTA award.

In summary, for the DGEN SDI RFS and accompanying solutions, the Government anticipated the distribution of FOUO/Controlled Unclassified information at a D classification level (Distro D). The government anticipates this project to be classified at the SECRET level. The DGEN SDI prototype itself will be UNCLASSIFIED. However, in order to develop the DGEN prototype, the vendor(s) will need to have access to a SECRET level database and information; therefore, all vendors and teammates (sub-vendors) will need to be able to perform under this classification level at the time of the award. The DGEN SDI prototype project is open to U.S DOD vendors and sub-vendor only.

5. Solution ResponsesSolution submissions should address planned documentation deliverables (including format and content) and any planned demonstrations, design reviews, and management reviews. A proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be provided in a Microsoft Project format.

Responses shall be submitted in an editable/executable (not scanned) Word/Adobe PDF format and limited to no more than 20* standard size (8 ½” X 11”) pages for the total volume count (see table below), using standard 12-point Arial font. Charts or figures are not bound by the 12-point font requirement but shall be clearly legible. The page size of 11” X17” is allowed for charts or figures only, and each page will be counted towards the 20* page limit (see Table 1). If the solution exceeds the page limitation, the Government may choose not to read any information exceeding the 20* page limit, and the information may not be included in the evaluation of the solution.

Volume Section Format**Counted towards the

page limit Page Limit

Yes No

General Cover Page Word/PDF X 5

Nontraditional Status X

FOCI Status X

OCI & Mitigation Plan X

Data Rights X

of 23

152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173

174

175176177178

179180181182183184185186187

Security Requirements X

Company Information X

Technical

Cover Page Word/PDF X

15

Sub-Vendor List Word/PDF X

Solution Paper Word/PDF X

Schedule (IMS) MS Project X

Labor & Pricing

Cover Page Word/PDF X

Labor Hours & Pricing Excel X

ROM Word/PDF XTable 2- Page Limits

*The Cover Pages, OCI & Mitigation Plan, Data Rights Assertion, IMS, ROM, and Excel format Labor & Pricing Breakdown are not included in the 20 page total.

**ALL PDFs will be editable (not locked).

Any additional information the vendor deems pertinent may be incorporated into the solution, but the total submission shall not exceed the 20-page limitation identified in Table 1 above.

5.1. RFS Solution ResponsesInterested parties shall provide an RFS solution response. The RFS solution response shall contain separate General, Technical, and Price Volumes. No pricing detail shall be provided in any volume other than the Price Volume. As appropriate, vendors shall mark their submissions with proprietary, confidential, etc. The volumes shall consist of:

General Volume Contents List o Cover Pageo Nontraditional Statuso Definition of Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NDC)o Foreign-Owned, Controlled or Influenced (FOCI) statuso Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and Mitigation Planso Company Information

Technical Volume Contents List o Cover Pageo Sub-Vendor Listo Solutions Submissiono Delivery Schedule o Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) o Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software

Labor & Pricing Volume Contents List o Cover Pageo Labor and Pricing

of 23

188

190191

192

193194195196197

198199200201202

203

204205206207208209

210

211212213214215216

217

218219

o Follow-On Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)

5.1.1. General VolumeIf the vendor fails to meet the minimum requirements, the solution may be denied further evaluation at the Government's discretion.

5.1.1.1. Cover PageThe cover page shall include the title, vendor’s name, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code (if available), Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, Business Size, address, the primary point of contact (phone number & email), and status of U.S. ownership. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this effort is 541512, Computer System Design Services. 5.1.1.2. Nontraditional StatusThe vendor shall provide its nontraditional business status or its ability to meet the eligibility requirements of 10 U.S.C. §2371b. The vendor shall check one of the following boxes – with appropriate justification if needed.

□ There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participation to a significant extent in the project.

□ All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors.

□ At least one-third of the total cost of the project is to be provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

If the vendor is not a nontraditional defense contractor (NDC) and the first two checkboxes are not checked, additional information is needed to support the eligibility requirements of 10 U.S.C. §2371b.

The vendor shall provide the name, CAGE code, and DUNS number information for the NDC. Additionally, the vendor shall provide what portion of the work the NDC is performing and an explanation of how the prototype would not succeed based on the portion of work performed by the NDC.

Definition Nontraditional – an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C §1502 and the regulations implementing such section.

5.1.1.3. Foreign-Owned, Controlled or Influenced (FOCI) Status In accordance with RFS Attachment 7, Security Process for Vetting Vendors, the General Volume must include a certification that the vendor (and subcontractor(s)) are not Foreign-Owned or under USA FOCI status (and are not in a merger or purchasing

of 23

220

221222

223224225226227228229230231232233

234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266

discussions for a Foreign company or USA FOCI Company). Should a prospective vendor be unable to certify so, they will be ineligible for the award unless the mitigating circumstances in Attachment 7 Security Process for Vetting Vendors are met. In such a case, these mitigating circumstances shall be detailed in an appendix to the General Volume.

Security Vetting: All vendors who want to compete, bid, or team with others for this effort must be willing to comply with the PEO STRI Security Process for Vetting. All vendors (Prime and Subs) must be vetted for eligibility, suitability, national status, e.g., FOCI prior to the receipt of any award instrument.

5.1.1.4. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and Mitigation PlanVendors will submit an OCI Mitigation Plan via an appendix to its General Volume. In the event, there are no real or perceived OCI, simply state so and annotate what actions would be taken in the event that one is realized. The OCI mitigation plan is not part of the solution page count.

5.1.1.5. Company InformationWithin this section, the vendor may include relevant or other miscellaneous information the company wishes to express to the Government (e.g., previous work, partnerships, awards, company structure, etc.).

5.1.2. Technical Volume

5.1.2.1. Cover PageThe cover page shall include the title, vendor’s name, CAGE Code (if available), DUNS number, Business Size, address, the primary point of contact (phone number & email), and status of U.S. ownership.

5.1.2.2. Sub-Vendor ListThe vendor shall provide a list of all sub-vendors involved and their role within the performance of your submission as an appendix to the Technical Volume. The list shall include FOCI status and OCI.

5.1.2.3. Solution SubmissionThe prototype effort is expected to be conducted by the vendor that demonstrates and proves technical competence, is adequately skilled, has past performance in the relevant technologies and systems within the past 5 years, and demonstrates price reasonableness.

Vendors will be requested to provide proposed solutions outlining their:

Technical Merit – The vendor’s technical analysis and design approach to carry out the project requirements in accordance with the NEWEG Modular, Open, Scalable Architecture (MOSA) and model-based threat simulation approach. See the SRS, Attachment 1.

of 23

267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305

306

307308309310311

The vendor’s past experience designing, developing, prototyping, and producing electronic threat simulation and measurement systems that can ingest and directly simulate validated intelligence data in EWIRDB format.

The vendor’s past experience designing, developing, prototyping, and producing advanced test systems and capabilities in accordance with NEWEG ICDs, IDDs, and open architecture standards.

The vendor’s past experience in working with various interfacing subsystems such as SSC 1.0/2.0 and various RFGEN vendors.

The vendors past experience supporting the test and assessment of aviation platforms at DoD test facilities.

The vendors capability to handle simultaneous development and production efforts for multiple platforms, missions, and locations.

The vendor’s ability to establish and sustain product lines at multiple locations.

Management Capabilities to include Team composition/personnel and sub-vendor involvement, including a description of subcontractor tasks, as well as manufacturing capabilities and facilities.

An Integrated Master Schedule for the entire effort.

The technical response is expected to clearly outline the appropriate assertion right in technical data, computer software, and software documentation that will be delivered with the solution.

The above capabilities are not listed in any specific order of priority and are provided to help focus vendor responses. In addition to describing the approach to delivering these capabilities, the technical solution shall also include full discussions of:

Anticipated development risks.

Proposed timeline tied to milestone activities for the 36 to 60-month period of performance.

5.1.2.4. ScheduleThis section should include an anticipated delivery schedule: The vendor is to include the anticipated delivery dates with their solution that includes all DGEN SDI capabilities and completion dates for key design reviews, test events, Integrated Product Team collaboration activities, and other tasks and deliverables as described herein.

5.1.2.4.1. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)An IMS is to be created using Microsoft Project. The IMS should be resource loaded with each task, including a predecessor (if applicable). The IMS may be attached as an

of 23

312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336

337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358

appendix file. The IMS is not included in the total page count, and page count is unlimited.

5.1.2.5. Data RightsGovernment desired rights are described in Section 5.1.2.7 of this RFS. For data rights other than unlimited or government purpose rights, the vendor shall assert each instance with justification within the Data Rights Assertions tables in Attachment 4.

5.1.2.6. DGEN SDI Prototype PhasesThe NAVAIR DGEN SDI prototype project will be executed in five phases, starting with initial design, development, fabrication, assembly, test, and transition of baseline DGEN prototype capabilities. Phase One, the baseline DGEN prototype capabilities, will build on and advance the initial design, development, and proof of principle prototyping of DGEN capabilities conducted by NAVAIR to date. Next, the DGEN SDI Prototype project will design, develop, fabricate, assemble, test, and transition DGEN prototype variants based on specific DOD aircraft, location, and mission requirements and desired enhancements to establish initial operational capabilities (IOC) in support of different DOD programs and activities to include the Navy, Air Force, and Army as well as other divisions of the DoD.

The prototype phases explain the high-level scope and deliverables required before proceeding to the subsequent Technical Objective (TO). The Government has the right to deny or approve entry into the next TO. The Government reserves the right to reject any deliverables. At the Government's discretion, the vendor may be required to revise and resubmit deliverables. If the Government determines that the vendor has not successfully met the TOs and/or has not produced the required (approved) technical documentation, the Government may terminate the prototype effort at any decision point (DP).

The phase is considered complete upon the successful demonstration of the collective TOs and the approval of all deliverables. However, the Government, at its discretion, may choose to proceed into subsequent TOs before the approval of TO objectives and/or deliverables.

Estimated Timeline: The Government anticipates that the total period of performance for this effort, which consists of five phases, will not exceed 36 to 60 months total dependent upon the potential concurrent or nonconcurrent execution of one or more phases.

The timeline below identifies the suggested/estimated completion of each TO milestone. The vendor will present its timeline for approval within the delivered IMS before the Kickoff meeting.

Phase One: Baseline Development (estimated 12 months) Phase One Description: The purpose of this phase is two-fold: (1) Design and

develop baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities, and (2) Test and Evaluate (T&E) the baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities with the NEWEG to verify and validate the DGEN capabilities. The resulting DGEN SDI prototype capabilities will serve as the test surrogate and baseline to support the initial design and development of

of 23

359360361362363364365366367

368369370371372373374375376377

378379380381382383384385

386387388389

390391392393

394395396

397

398399400401402

additional aircraft, mission, and location-specific variants of the DGEN SDI prototype, phases two through five. Test and integration activities will take place at NAVAIR 5.4 IBST or a location determined by the Government. Upon successful completion of the test activities, baseline DGEN SDI prototype will be delivered and transitioned to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST.

Phase One Technical Objectives:o Design and development of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype.o Production of baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities to support testing

activities.o T&E baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities with the NEWEG.o Testing of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities.o Transition of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST to

support the design and development of DGEN prototypes tailored to address specific aircraft, mission, and location requirements.

Phase One Outcomes: o Design, development, test, and transition baseline DGEN SDI prototype

capabilities. o All documentation, analysis, models, simulations, reports, etc. related to the

design, development, and testing of baseline DGEN SDI prototype capabilities.

Phase One Decision Point: Due to the lack of dependency of the phases following Phase One, DP One will be used to determine entry into Phase Two, Three, Four, and/or Five. Upon validation of the Phase One prototype baseline, any of the five (5) phases (Phase Two, Three, Four, and Five) may be started simultaneously, consecutively, or staggered. The start of each of the following phases will be dependent upon funding availability. Individually, Phase Two, Three, Four, and Five are not dependent on the start or completion of additional phases. Each can be started and completed at the end of Phase One or before, during, or after the start of completion of the remaining phases.

Phase Two: US Navy Variance (estimated 12 months) Phase Two Description: The purpose of this phase is to design, develop, and test

variants of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype to support specific US Navy aircraft, mission, and location requirements. The Navy aircraft variants will focus on their specific missions and locations, and any nuances between developing the baseline DGEN SDI prototype versus developing DGEN SDI prototypes to support the other DOD programs and activities. NAVAIR anticipates transitioning the initial Navy variants to four locations: (1) Air Station ASIL facility, Patuxent River NAS, MD; (2) Atlantic Test Range Facility, Patuxent River NAS, MD; (3) Electronic Combat Range, NAS China Lake, CA; and (4) Electronic Combat Simulation and Evaluation Laboratory, NBVC Pt. Mugu, CA. NAVAIR also anticipates testing and demonstrating additional DGEN SDI capabilities at other Navy locations as those specific aircraft, missions, and the host program or activity defines location requirements (variants). Upon successful completion of the test activities, the DGEN SDI prototype(s) will be delivered and transitioned to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST.

of 23

403404405406407408

409410411412413414415416417

418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432

433

434435436437438439440441442443444445446447

Phase Two Technical Objectives:o Design and development of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial fabrication of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address

specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial developmental testing of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Delivery of US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft,

missions, and locations. The number of prototypes will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the viability of US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations with the NEWEG to verify and validate the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities at each delivery location.

o Reach IOC of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

Phase Two Outcomes: o Design, development, fabrication, and delivery of US Navy variant DGEN SDI

prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations [the test article(s) required to support testing of the US Navy variant prototypes]. The number of test articles will be determined by the need for the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the viability of US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations to determine the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities.

o Establish IOC for the technical feasibility of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

o All documentation, analysis, models, simulations, reports, etc. related to the design, development, and fabrication of the US Navy variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations and the declaration of IOC

Phase Two Decision Point: Phase Two may be ready for a DP upon the successful completion of all Phase Two requirements. DP Two may occur after a successful demonstration of the Phase Two requirements and may be made before the Government acceptance of all Phase Two deliverable outcomes. Completion of Phase Two may also serve as the successful completion of the DGEN SDI prototype project to include the transition of all deliverables to the US Navy.

Phase Three US Air Force Variants (estimated 12 months)

Phase Three Description: The purpose of this phase is to design, develop, and test variants of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype to support specific US Air Force aircraft, mission, and location requirements and desired enhancements. The Air Force variants will focus on different types of aircraft, specific missions and locations, and any nuances between developing and producing the baseline DGEN

of 23

448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493

SDI prototype versus developing and producing DGEN SDI prototypes to support the other DOD programs and activities. NAVAIR anticipates integrating, testing, and demonstrating additional DGEN SDI capabilities at multiple Air Force Base (AFB) locations as those specific aircraft, mission, and location requirements (variants) are defined by the host program or activity. Upon successful completion of the test activities, the DGEN SDI prototype(s) will be delivered and transitioned to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST.

Phase Three Technical Objectives:o Design and development of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial fabrication of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address

specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial developmental testing of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes

that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Delivery of US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific

aircraft, missions, and locations. The number of prototypes will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the viability of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations with the NEWEG to verify and validate the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities at each delivery location.

o Reach IOC of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

Phase Three Outcomes:o Design, development, fabrication, and delivery of US Air Force variant DGEN

SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations [the test article(s) required to support the test of the US Air Force variant prototypes]. The number of test articles will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the viability of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations to determine the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities.

o Establish IOC for the technical feasibility of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations

o All documentation, analysis, models, simulations, reports, etc. related to the design, development, and production of the US Air Force variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations and the declaration of IOC.

Phase Three Decision Point: Phase Three may be ready for a DP upon the successful completion of all Phase Three requirements. DP Three may occur after a successful demonstration of the Phase Three requirements and may be made before the Government acceptance of all Phase Three deliverable outcomes. Completion of Phase Three may also serve as the successful completion of the

of 23

494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539

DGEN SDI prototype project to include the transition of all deliverables to the US Air Force.

Phase Four: US Army Variants (estimated 12 months) Phase Four Description: The purpose of this phase is to design, develop, and test

variants of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype to support specific US Army aircraft, mission, and location requirements and desired enhancements. The Army variants will focus on different types of aircraft, specific missions and locations, and any nuances between developing and producing the baseline DGEN SDI prototype versus developing and producing DGEN SDI prototypes to support the other DOD programs and activities. NAVAIR anticipates integrating, testing, and demonstrating additional DGEN SDI capabilities at multiple Army locations as those specific aircraft, missions, and the host program or activity defines location requirements (variants). Upon successful completion of the test activities, the DGEN SDI prototype(s) will be delivered and transitioned to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST.

Phase Four Technical Objectives:o Design and development of the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial production of the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address

specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial developmental testing of the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Delivery of US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft,

missions, and locations. The number of prototypes will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations with NEWEG to verify and validate the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities at each delivery location.

o Reach IOC of the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

Phase Four Outcomeso Design, development, fabrication, and delivery of US Army variant DGEN SDI

prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations [the test article(s) required to support the test of the US Army variant prototypes]. The number of test articles will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations to determine the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities.

o Establish IOC for the US Army variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

o All documentation, analysis, models, simulations, reports, etc. related to the design, development, and production of the US Army variant DGEN SDI

of 23

540541542

543

544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584

prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations and the declaration of IOC.

Phase Four Decision Point: Phase Four may be ready for a DP upon the successful completion of all Phase Four requirements. DP Four may occur after a successful demonstration of the Phase Four requirements and may be made before the Government acceptance of all Phase Four deliverable outcomes. Completion of Phase Four may also serve as the endpoint of the DGEN SDI prototype project with the transition of the test articles to the US Army. This is dependent upon the remaining Phases and their funding during this OT Prototype cycle.

Phase Five Other DOD Variants (estimated 12 months) Phase Five Description. The purpose of this phase is to design, develop, and test

variants of the baseline DGEN SDI prototype to support specific other DOD aircraft, mission, and location requirements and desired enhancements. The other DOD variants will focus on different types of aircraft, specific missions and locations, and any nuances between developing and producing the baseline DGEN SDI prototype versus developing and producing DGEN SDI prototypes to support the other programs and activities (such as the Navy, Air Force, and the Army). NAVAIR anticipates, testing, and demonstrating additional DGEN SDI capabilities at multiple Other DOD locations as those specific aircraft, mission, and the host program or activity defines location requirements (variants). Upon successful completion of the test activities, the DGEN SDI prototype(s) will be delivered and transitioned to NAVAIR 5.4 IBST.

Phase Five Technical Objectiveso Design and development of the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial fabrication of the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address

specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Initial developmental testing of the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that

address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.o Delivery of other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific

aircraft, missions, and locations. The number of prototypes will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

o Test the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations with the NEWEG to verify and validate the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities at each delivery location.

o Reach IOC of the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

Phase Five Outcomes o Design, development, fabrication, and delivery of other DOD variant DGEN SDI

prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations [the test article(s) required to support the test of the other DOD variant prototypes]. The number of test articles will be determined by the need of the various variants initiated at the start of the phase.

of 23

585586587588589590591592593594

595

596597598599600601602603604605606607

608609

610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630

o Test other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations to determine the feasibility and utility of the variant prototype capabilities.

o Establish IOC for the integrated other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations.

o All documentation, analysis, models, simulations, reports, etc. related to the design, development, and production of the other DOD variant DGEN SDI prototypes that address specific aircraft, missions, and locations and the declaration of IOC.

Phase Five Decision Point: Phase Five may be ready for a DP upon the successful completion of all Phase Five requirements. DP Five may occur after a successful demonstration of the Phase Five requirements and may be made before the Government acceptance of all Phase Five deliverable outcomes. Completion of Phase Five may also serve as the endpoint of the DGEN SDI prototype project with the transition of the test articles to the other DOD organizations and activities. This is dependent upon the remaining Phases and their funding during the OT Prototype cycle.

5.1.2.7. Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer SoftwareFor this RFS and final award document, the Government will use the data rights and computer software related terms defined in Attachment 6, Data Rights and Computer Software License Terms and Definitions

Vendors shall complete the Data Rights Assertions tables in Attachment 4, including any assertions of its sub-vendors or suppliers that must be submitted as an attachment to its solution response. The tables must be completed in the format outlined in the attachment, dated and signed by an official authorized to obligate the vendor contractually. If additional space is necessary, additional pages may be included. There is no page limit for the Data Rights Assertions tables, and they do not count against the proposed technical solution page limitation. If the proposed solution under this transaction contains data rights other than unlimited or government purpose rights, the vendor shall assert each instance with justification within the Data Rights Assertions tables in Attachment 4.

The Government requires a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (GPR) to all development and deliverables of technical data and computer software developed exclusively with Government funded under the transaction agreement, for a five-year period.

The Vendor shall describe the intellectual property rights being provided to the Government in terms of technical data, both in software and hardware, clearly outlining the appropriate assertion of rights within technical data, computer software and software documentation that will be delivered with your solution(s), and any rights restrictions. If the proposed solution includes commercial software, copies of any applicable End User License Agreements (EULAs) must be submitted with the response. It is the Government’s intent to plan for the maintenance and modification of the system(s) using Government personnel and third party vendors. The EULA submissions have no page

of 23

631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650

651652653

654655656657658659660661662663

664665666667668669670671672673674675676677

limit and do not count against the proposed technical solution page limitation. If additional pages are needed, data rights assertions may be submitted as an appendix, which has no page limit and does not count against the proposed technical solution page limitation. The Vendor shall make every effort to analyze feasible non-proprietary solutions and incorporate them when applicable to the effort. This includes, but is not limited to, software rights, data, source code, drawings, manuals, warranties, and integration efforts. The Vendor shall clearly state all assumptions made during development of responses.

5.1.2.8 Operations SecurityFor Operations Security (OPSEC) requirements, see Attachment 9; OPSEC requirements document.

5.1.2.8.1.1 CybersecurityThe prototype shall meet all applicable Risk Management Framework (RMF) cybersecurity requirements required for the Government to obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO).

5.1.3 Labor & Pricing Volume

5.1.3.1 Cover PageThe cover page shall include the title, vendor’s name, CAGE Code (if available), DUNS number, Business Size, address, the primary point of contact (phone number & email), and status of U.S. ownership. 5.1.3.2 Labor Hours & PricingVendors shall submit a firm, fixed-price amount for its solution, further divided into severable milestones. The Government is not dictating a specific price mechanism. However, proposed payments should be linked to definable, detailed milestones for the prototype. It should be clear, with sufficient detail, what is being delivered at each milestone. The vendor’s pricing milestones may vary from the defined decision points, depending on the proposed solution. Labor Hours and labor category by TO should be included in the pricing breakdown. Pricing submission shall be submitted in Excel format with all Excel formula’s and pricing information (to include buildup of direct labor rate) used during the calculation. Milestones should be established and priced in a manner that prohibits milestone efforts from being worked concurrently. Each milestone price should reflect the anticipated value the Government will receive toward the accomplishment of the OTA goals and objectives at the time the milestone is completed. The Labor Hours & Pricing has no page number limitation.

5.1.3.3. Follow-On Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Vendors shall provide a ROM pricing for potential DGEN follow-on production activities as described in Section 8 with an assumption that the Navy anticipates ordering a quantity of up to 12 systems. The Follow-On ROM pricing shall state all assumptions and methodology used to obtain the Follow-on ROM. Please note: The Follow-On ROM

of 23

678679680681682683684685686687688689690691692

693694695696697698699

700

701702703704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720

721722723724

will assist in future planning efforts for the potential follow-on efforts. The Follow-On ROM is not part of the evaluation and will be used for future planning purposes. 5.2. RFS Response Instruction: There will be an open period for the submittal of questions relating to the RFS. All questions related to this RFS should be submitted utilizing the Vendor Question Form provided as Attachment 10. Questions must be submitted via email to [email protected], with “DGEN SDI” used in the subject line. All questions must be submitted with the company name and POC information.

Questions must be submitted no later than 12:00 PM EDT, One week after release of Final RFS. Questions received after the deadline may not be answered. Questions shall not include proprietary data as the Government reserves the right to post submitted questions and answers, as necessary (and appropriate) to facilitate vendor solution responses. The Government will make every attempt to answer all submitted questions as soon as possible, but no later than Three weeks after release of the Final RFS. Questions shall not include proprietary data. The Government reserves the right to post submitted questions and answers, as necessary (and appropriate) to facilitate vendor Solution Paper responses. Submitted questions will be posted without identifying company names.

The Government may also establish a WebEx session, as appropriate, to communicate with industry. If the Government decides to utilize WebEx, a date, time, and title of the event will be posted no later than two (2) weeks before solutions are due.

Written solutions shall be submitted no later than 1:00 PM EDT on TBD, via the “Submit a Solution” button on the NSTXL website. Any submissions received after the deadline may be rejected as late and not considered.

Vendor submission shall be valid for at least 180 days after submission.

** Exact dates will be filled-in when the Final RFS is posted

6. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS6.1. Evaluation

The evaluation will consist of an evaluation of the written solution response. If further information is required after the completion of the evaluations of the written solution responses, the Government may request presentations and/or demonstrations or enter into communications with vendors.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the submission provides a thorough, flexible, and sound approach to fulfill the requirements.

In performing the initial review of the Technical Volume, the Government evaluators will only review the enclosures and other proposal information if the response describes a

of 23

725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753754755756757758

759

760

761762763764

765766

767768

mailto:[email protected]

technical approach that the Government evaluators find sufficiently viable and effective based on the Focus Areas described below.

If the other supporting documents are reviewed, the Government evaluators will consider the extent to which the supporting documents are consistent with the remaining technical response. If the supporting documents are not consistent, the overall evaluation of the vendor’s solution may be negatively affected.

The Government recognizes the need for flexibility in its evaluation process. The following represents the Government’s planned approach to evaluating submissions in response to this RFS. If necessary, the Government reserves the right to modify its evaluation approach.

Written solution responses will be evaluated with consideration given to the vendor’s ability to provide a clear description of the proposed solution, the overall technical merit of the response, and the total project risk with consideration aimed at the Focus Areas, Technical and Labor & Pricing Volumes. The proposed schedule; and Intellectual Property and Data Rights will also be considered as aspects of the entire response when weighing risk and reward. The Government evaluators will consider the written solution response when selecting the preferred approach to achieving the Government’s objectives.

After the evaluation of written solution responses, it is anticipated that the Government will begin the Statement of Work (SOW) collaboration with the selected vendor.

The Technical and Labor & Pricing Volumes of the Written Solution Response will be evaluated based upon the following focus areas.

Focus Areas: In evaluating the viability and overall effectiveness, the Government evaluators will consider the following focus areas, in no specific order of importance.

Focus Area Focus Area Description

1 Technical Merit

2 Demonstrated Experience

3 Solution Feasibility of Implementation

4 Anticipated Delivery Schedule

5 Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software

6 Solution Price

6.1.1.1. Focus Area 1 – Technical MeritThe technical merit of the vendor’s technical solution and design approach for all phases and objectives as described in Sections 5.1.2.6

of 23

769770

771772773774

775776777778

779780781782783784785786

787788

789790

791792

794

795

796797798

6.1.1.2. Focus Area 2 – Demonstrated ExperienceClearly communicate experience designing, developing, prototyping, and producing electronic threat simulation and measurement systems that can ingest and directly simulate validated intelligence data in EWIRDB format. This includes recent experience, within 5 years, working with various interfacing subsystems such as SSC 1.0/2.0 and various RFGEN vendors. Communicate experience in advanced test systems and capabilities in accordance with NEWEG ICDs, IDDs, and open architecture standards. Communicate experience supporting the test and assessment of aviation platforms at DoD test facilities. Communicate the ability to handle simultaneous development and production efforts for multiple platforms, missions, and locations. Communicate the ability to establish and sustain product lines at multiple locations. 6.1.1.3. Focus Area 3 – Solution and Feasibility of ImplementationClear, concise, and well-developed solution with streamlined approach of being implemented into the DGEN SDI, ease of adapting final design prototype solution for reuse in various DoD variants.

6.1.1.4. Focus Area 4 – Anticipated Delivery ScheduleThe Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and understanding of the entire effort as demonstrated in the proposed delivery dates for all tasks as described in the RFS.

6.1.1.5. Focus Area 5 – Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer SoftwareThe Government will evaluate the vendor’s Attachment 4, Data Rights Assertions Tables, specifically their response to requested Government Desired Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software and evaluate for risk(s) impacts.

6.1.1.6. Focus Area 6 – Solution PriceTransparent pricing & cost data, which accurately reflects the level of effort derived from proposed Technical Volume, and IMS. Rational price breakdown for each significant milestone activity. A detailed breakdown of man-hours by month for each labor category.

6.2. Selection Process

The Government anticipates awarding one OT prototype project, through TReX, to the vendor that proposes a solution that best satisfies the Government’s objectives.

The Government will review each vendor’s submittal against the focus areas outlined in Section 6.1 and make an award to the vendor whose solution is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government in terms of overall technical merit, solution feasibility, and total project risk with considerations for price, schedule, and data rights assertions.

of 23

799800801802803804805806807808809810811

812813814815816

817818819

820821822

823824825

826827828829830831832833834835836837838839840841842843

The assessment of risk is subjective. If the risk is evident or the schedule seems overly aggressive, the Government will consider that in the total risk assessment. Vendors are responsible for identifying risks within their submissions, as well as providing specific mitigation solutions. If sufficient validation of the proposed information is not provided, the Government may reject the submission.

Unsupported assertions will be discounted by the evaluators.

In making the final decision, it may become necessary to compare the proposals of each vendor against the other. Still, the Government anticipates that its decision is more likely to be made based on each vendor’s submittal as evaluated against the criteria described above and a determination of which proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government.

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION7.1. Statement of WorkThe proposed solution will be used to collaboratively negotiate a Statement of Work (SOW) after selection for the award. The SOW will be incorporated into the OTA as part of the award.

7.2. Export Controls Research findings and technology developments arising from the efforts may constitute a significant enhancement to the national defense and the economic vitality of the United States. As such, in the conduct of all work related to this effort, the recipient will comply strictly with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) and the Department of Commerce Export Regulation (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774). 7.3. Interaction and/or Disclosure The Vendor should comply with foreign disclosure processes IAW US Army Regulation (AR) 380‐10, Foreign Disclosure and Contacts with Foreign Representatives; Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5230.11, Disclosure of Classified Military Information to Foreign Governments and International Organizations; and DoDD 5230.20, Visits and Assignments of Foreign Nationals. All submissions shall be unclassified. Submissions containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following sentences on the cover page:“This submission includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non-Government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Company as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use the information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

of 23

844845846847848849850851852853854855856857858

859860861862863864865866867868869870871872

873874875876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890

Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows:“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this submission.”

8. FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION ACTIVITIESThe Government anticipates one or more DGEN SDI prototype solutions may require further development to support initial operational capabilities (IOC). IOC is defined as the ability to develop and test prototypes that lead to the successful transition of distributed logistics enhancing capabilities and technologies to the Warfighter. To establish IOC, follow-on activities, such as further development or production, may be required for one or more of the DGEN SDI variant prototypes.

The Navy anticipates further development of one or more prototypes that may be required to establish IOC. This determination will be made by NAVAIR 5.4 IBST. NAVAIR 5.4 IBST will take into consideration initial user evaluation(s) when determining if further development of one or more prototypes is required. If further development is required, NAVAIR 5.4 IBST will continue the development of the DGEN SDI prototype(s) until all requirements specified by the user, resource sponsors, and stakeholders are met, and IOC is established.

The Navy anticipates conducting a low rate initial production (LRIP) of each of the DGEN DGI variant prototypes that reach IOC. LRIP will be used to produce a small quantity set of test articles to provide for representation at Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). LRIP will also be used to establish an initial production base and set the stage for a gradual increase in production rate to allow for Full-Rate Production (FRP) upon completion of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). The LRIP quantity will not exceed 10 percent of the total expected production, as determined by the NAVY, resource sponsors, and stakeholders.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b(f), the Navy does anticipate (upon successful completion of IOT&E and OT&E activities) production of each DGEN SDI variant prototype may be required. This will include maintenance and sustainment support. The NAVY will brief resource sponsors and stakeholders to recommend either a non-competitive, follow-on production OT or a sole-sourced FAR based production contract. This determination will be under Government cost estimates and plan of action and milestones (POA&M).

9. ATTACHMENTSThe characteristics of this prototype system and the Government concept for its development are included in the below attachments.

Attachment #1 – System Requirements Specification (SRS) for the Next Generation Electronic Warfare Environment Generator (NEWEG) Block B, 29 May 2014

Attachment #2 – DGEN-RFGEN Interface Control Document (ICD), 30 July 2019 Version 1.02

of 23

891892893

894

895896897898899900

901902903904905906907

908909910911912913914915

916917918919920921922

923924925926

927928929930931932

Attachment #3 – Interface Design Description (IDD) for Next Generation Electronic Warfare Environment Generator (NEWEG), 30 July 2018

Attachment #4 – Data Rights Assertion TablesAttachment #5 – Data Rights License Terms DefinitionsAttachment #6 – Data Rights and Computer Software License Terms and Definitions

and EULAAttachment #7 – Security Process for Vetting VendorsAttachment #8 – DGEN_GFI_Distribution AgreementAttachment #9 – DGEN/RFGEN_OPSEC RequirementsAttachment #10 – Vendor Question Form

Attachments 1-3 are considered GFI and will be provided in accordance with Section 4 of this document.

of 23

933934935936937938939940941942943944945946

p€¦ · web viewresponses shall be submitted in an editable/executable (not scanned) word/adobe...

Documents