IMPORTANT NOTICE:
There is a security requirements associated with this requirement.
July 10, 2017:
Due to its nature, distribution of the classified Appendix 3 to Annex A is restricted. This means that it contains information that cannot be published to BuyandSell.gc.ca and can only be distributed upon request to Bidders who meet the security requirements for both document access and document safeguarding capability. For more information, please consult PART 6 - SECURITY, FINANCIAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS, of the solicitation document.
If not already done, we encourage Bidders to consult the section 6.0, Engagement Process W7714-145970/A of Part 1 – General information, of the solicitation document for information about the Engagement process conducted under this requirement and also to consult the Questions and Answers compendiums before asking question(s) about the bid solicitation.
TEC3 Engagement Process:
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/tma/node/668957
The closing date of this solicitation is extended to 22 September 2017.The purpose of using this unusual solicitation period is to provide suppliers with enough time to request a copy of the classified appendix and also to overcome the summer holiday season.
27 July 2017:
Added a Questions/Answers section below, and also added the first five questions.
02 August 2017:
Questions 6 to 13 added to the Q&A section below.
22 August 2017:
Publication of the first Amendment of the RFP. Please note that the closing date of this solicitation has been postponed to October 13, 2017. We also added questions 14 to 16.
24 August 2017:
Added Question 17.
06 September 2017:
Added Questions 18 to 22.
25 September 2017:
Revised version of the RFP document, added Questions 23-29 and the solicitation period has been extended.
10 October 2017:
Added questions 30 to 34.
BACKGROUND:
Current tactical networks for Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) soldiers support all-informed voice communication through the personal role radio for dismounted units, while vehicles are equipped with Enhanced Position Location Reporting System radios for blue-force tracking and data and/or Combat Net Radios for voice and data. It is envisioned that future CAF tactical networks will provide enhanced voice, data, and network services to dismounted soldiers. The TEC3 project aims to demonstrate a set of software tools to enhance the security and effectiveness of future CAF tactical edge networks. Specifically, TEC3 will demonstrate network security, situational awareness, and management tools necessary to enable the protection of sophisticated high-bandwidth tactical networks.
TEC3 is ultimately a suite of plug-ins or apps running on, potentially modified, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or Military Off the Shelf (MOTS) “smartphone” type hardware. These graphical display devices will connect to one another via internal or external radios, forming a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) that includes COTS PCs, simulating a forward operating base. It is expected that TEC3 applications or plug-ins can be added or removed as necessary for any particular TEC3 deployment.
The TEC3 system is expected to be delivered at a technology readiness level (TRL) of at least 6.
The requirement is subject to the provisions of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), formerly known as the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).
This procurement is set aside from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) under Annex 1001.2b, Section B – Sub section A: Research and Development, All classes; and is not listed under Appendix 1, article 1(d ) of the World Trade Organization - Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO-AGP).
This procurement is subject to the Controlled Goods Program, as the delivered TEC3 demonstrator or a portion of will be Controlled Goods (CG) and will have to be treated according to the rules and regulation surrounding CG of the Government of Canada.
There is a Federal Contractors Program (FCP) for employment equity requirement associated with this procurement; see Part 5 - Certifications, Part 7 - Resulting Contract Clauses and the Attachment 1 to Part 5 named
Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity - Certification .
The period of any resulting Contract will be for a period of three (3) years, with up to three (3) additional two (2) year optional periods.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE SOLICITATION PROCESS:
Question 1:
The terms and conditions in Part 7 (Resulting Contract Clauses) of the RFP do not contain a clause limiting the Contractor’s liability for damages. A standard limitation of liability clause has been developed primarily by PWGSC for IM/IT procurements. There can be no doubt that this DRDC solicitation is an IM/IT solicitation given the deliverable requirements. The PWGSC limitation of liability clause reflects for the most part, a commercially reasonable allocation of risk between Canada and the Contractor in keeping with Treasury Board policy regarding Contractors' liability in Crown procurements. Since this RFP describes an IM/IT procurement, we request that the RFP be amended to insert in Part 7 of the RFP the standard IM/IT limitation of liability clause available in the SACC Manual having ID N0000C (2013-04-25) and entitled Limitation of Liability-Information Management/Information Technology.
Answer 1:
Based on the specifics of this Research and Development (R&D) requirement, stated in the Statements of Requirements and its appendices, this project is not considered as a standard IM/IT project. The standard Research and Development Risk limitation clause ‘2040 26 (2008-05-12) Liability’ will apply to the resulting contract.
Question 2:
Does Canada have the requirements list, identified at page 42 of the RFP, available in a Word or Excel document?
Answer 2:
Unfortunately there is no Word or Excel version of this requirements list. We suggest bidders to try the conversion feature, available in Adobe Acrobat.
Question 3:
We’re trying to locate the three documents that are listed on Page 66 – Section 2, Applicable Documents, 2.2. List of Documents. Can you provide us with a copy of these documents?
Answer 3:
Document [1] – Concept Document: upon requested, this document can be provided to bidders by contacting the Contracting Authority. Document [2] – Functional Specification: this document is included at Appendix 2 to Annex A of the RFP document. Document [3] - Specifications for advanced capabilities of the Tactical Edge Cyber Command and Control (TEC3) project (U): this document is the classified Appendix 3 to Annex A (available upon request to bidders who meet the security requirements).
Question 4:
We are looking for the document: C. McKenzie, “TEC3 REALTIME blue force tracking proof-of-concept development report”, DRDC-RDDC-2015-C150, April 2014. Are you providing this document to interested bidders?
Answer 4:
Unfortunately, the distribution of this document is limited. We have built the solicitation document a way that it’s not necessary for bidders to access information contained in it in order to put together a bid. For that reason, we won’t disclose this document at the moment.
Question 5:
At Attachment 1 of Part 3, sections 1.2-1.7 ask for costs to be identified without markup. How does PSPC expect industry to recover those general and administrative expenses applicable to those activities in sections 1.2-1.7?
Answer 5:
For information purposes, if these expenses are considered Direct or Indirect Costs, they can be added to the total estimated price for a specific cost element. Please consult the following link for more details on the Government Contract Cost Principles:
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/standard-acquisition-clauses-and-conditions-manual/3/1031-2/6
Question 6:
Is there a Word copy of the file available in order to facilitate the creation of a response templates?
Answer 6: This statement supersede the answer at Question #2, above.
Upon request, the Contracting Authority can provide a Word version of the RFP to bidders. Bidders are advised that information contained in the most up to date PDF version take precedence over the Word version.
Question 7:
With respect to payment and supporting detail, the current instructions are that “Each claim must be supported by: (a) a copy of time sheets to support the time claimed”. The Crown is requested to confirm the need for Time Sheets, if the payment is, in fact, Milestone-based at a firm price.
Answer 7:
Time sheets are not required for Milestone payments. Note, however, that payment for the core work is not Milestone based.
Question 8:
Part 4 - 1.1.1 Bidder Experience: The RFP indicates that if a Bidder wishes to use key personnel from an affiliate, a copy of a teaming agreement needs to be included. For many bidders, to “team” is a much more complex business arrangement to initiate, and to have approved by Company/Corporate management, whereas a Prime/Subcontractor relationship is much easier to put in place, and also provides the prime a greater degree of flexibility in delivering the TEC3 system, and to accommodate the changes that an AGILE development approach entails. It is therefore suggested that the “Teaming Agreement” requirement be modified to show the subcontractors that the Prime (bidder) intends to use, and the role(s) that these subcontractors are planned to fill in support of the Prime Contractor’s bid.
Answer 8:
The Crown agrees that it is sufficient for the bidder to indicate the sub-contractors that it intends to use and the roles and responsibilities the sub-contractors are intended to have in the delivery and execution of the work.
Question 9:
Part 4 - 1.1.1 Bidder Experience: The final paragraph indicates that the experience of Bidder’s supplier will not be considered. It is assumed that this applies to the supplier’s (sub-contractor’s) experience at company level. Should the supplier (or sub-contractor) be providing personnel as part of the Key Technical Team, can it be assumed that that individual’s experience can be included in the scoring allocated to personnel qualifications and experience?
Answer 9:
Correct. The supplier’s (sub-contractor’s) experience as a company will not be considered. However, if the sub-contractor is providing personnel as part of the Key Technical Team, then the experience of these team members can be included in the personnel scoring.
Question 10:
Attachment 1 of Part 4, Section 2.1 Management Mandatory Evaluation Criteria – Personnel –Android Programmer: Paragraphs M11 and M12 make no reference to actual Android development, only “software development” and “programming and system design with Java or C++ software development”. The Crown is requested to either confirm or clarify the required experience of the specified Android Programmer.
Answer 10:
All Mandatory evaluation criteria, identified at Attachment 1 of Part 4, MANDATORY, FINANCIAL AND POINT RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA must be met at bid closing. The Crown confirms the accuracy of these Mandatory evaluation criteria and they take precedence over the criteria identified in Appendix 1 to Annex A, Optional Services Requirements.
Question 11:
Attachment 1 of Part 4, Section 2.1 Management Mandatory Evaluation Criteria – Personnel – Android Programmer, Firmware Software Engineer and Mobile R&D Specialist: Paragraphs M11 to M16 do not match the minimum skills requirements identified for these resources, as stipulated in Appendix 1 to Annex A, Optional Services Requirements. The Crown is requested to clarify which set of Evaluation Criteria should be used.
Answer 11:
All Mandatory evaluation criteria, identified at Attachment 1 of Part 4, MANDATORY, FINANCIAL AND POINT RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA must be met at bid closing. These Mandatory evaluation criteria take precedence over the criteria identified in Appendix 1 to Annex A, Optional Services Requirements.
The Crown will update the resource qualifications, identified in Appendix 1 to Annex A, to match the qualifications requested in Attachment 1 to Part 4, MANDATORY, FINANCIAL AND POINT RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA. These changes will be incorporated into the resulting contract at the time of its award. The change to APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX A, OPTIONAL SERVICES REQUIREMENTS, Resource Requirements will state: “This resource must have the same qualifications (or better) as those used in the solicitation document to evaluate this resource.”
Question 12:
Attachment 1 of Part 4, Section 2.2 Corporate Mandatory Evaluation Criteria: Paragraph M17 states that Bidders are to have completed a “relevant project in which they were required to set up a wireless environment….”, but then in italics specifies in much greater detail that the project is to have been of much the same size as TEC3. Where Bidders have executed such a project but on a much larger scale, can it be presumed that the Bidder would still receive maximum points?
Answer 12:
Please take note that there is no points awarded for this kind of criteria. Bidders that have undertaken a project at a larger scale than the TEC3 project, could still meet this Mandatory Evaluation Criterion, following the evaluation of the information provided in their bid.
Question 13:
Attachment 1 of Part 4, Section 3.1.1 (b) - In order to obtain maximum points for this part of the PMP, the RFP states the following “The proposed work plan for the TEC3 initiative is broken down into smaller epic(s) / WBE(s) and identifies all the necessary stories (or tasks), story (or task) tests, quality assurance and related PM activities required for the successful completion of Phase 1, and for each deliverable of Phase 1 of the Initial Requirement identified in the SOR at Annex A, at a greater level of detail than described in the SOR and functional specification. Tasks and sub-tasks are defined within each sprint in sufficient detail (2-4 weeks) for Phase 1. All stories (or tasks) are reflected in a comprehensive backlog that also includes limiting activities, required inputs from Canada, identifies critical activities and presents consideration to anticipate and avoid delays. The proposed work plan also includes smaller epic(s)/WBE(s) for subsequent phases in a backlog, where the epic(s)/WBE(s) for subsequent phases do not need to be broken down to the level of stories for this initial submission.” It is our interpretation that in order to get full points, the Bidder essentially has to have all of the work, tasks and subtasks defined for each sprint, and documented in the PMP. Agile methodologies do not do sprint planning ahead of time, as it is always the case that things change and that any effort expended on sprint planning too far in advance is in all likelihood, time wasted. As part of the development process, even the Bidder’s initial backlog should be built and prioritized with the DRDC customer. In order to adhere to the principles and guidelines of an agile approach, it would be our recommendation that Bidders be asked to build as detailed a backlog as possible, with as many stories for Phase 1 as the Bidder deems appropriate. Furthermore, this product backlog would, upon contract award, be reviewed in a proper product backlog grooming session with the DRDC customer and all stakeholders, to ensure that the Bidder’s interpretation of the requirements and user stories is as intended. In addition, this joint review provides the Bidder with the opportunity to prioritize the stories in the Product Backlog, before starting the sprint process.
Answer 13:
This summary is correct. For full points, the initial backlog is to be created with sufficient detail as indicated in the evaluation criteria. For the winning bidder, this backlog will be reviewed and prioritized with DRDC in the initial grooming session. Since Phase 1 is building the TEC3 infrastructure (communication and networking) it is possible to provide a greater level of detail than the follow on phases when features are being developed and prioritized.
Question 14:
Does DRDC provide any guidance regarding the structure, content and format of the mission header?
Answer 14:
Some guidance for the "mission header" structure, content and format is provided in Section 4.3 "Use of encryption keys" in the functional specification. The intent of the mission header is to provide basic information about the node/group and also to provide information regarding the structure of the rest of the packet (what key is used, etc.). All TEC3 nodes in the network will have the "mission key" so should be able to decrypt this header without any other group keys or session keys. The contractor has the freedom to structure this header how they see fit, bearing in mind what it is intended to do. Requirements ENCRYPT.13, ENCRYPT.14, ENCRYPT.15, ENCRYPT.16, and ENCRYPT.17 are the extent of the guidance provided on structure and content. Note that ENCRYPT.15 provides a mandatory requirement that nodes must be able to detect when they are not in possession of the current group key and must be able to request it; it is up to the bidder how to addresses this requirement, but one possible method includes using the "mission header" information as discussed in ENCRYPT.15.
Question 15:
Requirement ENCRYPT12.b states "All information at or above the IP layer of the network protocol stack should be encrypted"; The IP layer includes the IP header and the IP payload. Should the IP header be encrypted? If so, this means that an approach such as a MACSEC would need to be used as opposed to an IPSEC-like approach. Could the crown kindly clarify the intention of requirement ENCRYPT12.b?
Answer 15:
Note that ENCRYPT12.b is an optional requirement. ENCRYPT.12a is the minimum requirement and states that transport-layer data and above "must" be encrypted. In this case, no IP addresses or header information would be encrypted. For "optional requirement" ENCRYPT.12b, the intention was to encrypt both the IP payload and IP header to obfuscate IP and topology information.
Question 16:
We would be grateful to receive greater clarification regarding requirement ENCRYPT.19. We understand from other content in the document that unicast traffic such as a one-to-one voice conversation may be encrypted using a session key. However, we were unsure about the reference to unicast "routing information" being encrypted with a group key in ENCRYPT.19. Is this requirement specifically related to the routing protocol packets? e.g. OLSR packets?
Answer 16:
The Crown is removing requirement ENCRYPT.19 from the functional specification. The implementation of this requirement is predicated on whether or not the bidders implement the optional requirement ENCRYPT.12b and thus ENCRYPT.19 has been deemed redundant.
Question 17:
In Appendix 2 to Annex A, Functional Specification, Para 7, Data Dissemination DISSEM.3 reads as follows, “Notwithstanding Table 3, “analyst node” operators must have the ability to re- disseminate any data to selected nodes as desired using the TEC3 GUI.”
What is the meaning of “re-disseminate any data”? Is the Analyst node sending its current state of data to these select nodes exactly ONCE or is the Analyst node forwarding any data that it receives to the selected nodes? Which data from table 3 below is involved in this re- dissemination? If voice data is involved, is it correct to assume that this data has to be stored?
Answer 17:
The intent of DISSEM.3 is that it applies only to data currently resident on the Analyst node—and it does not apply to voice or encryption keys. There is no requirement for the Analyst node to seek out data it does not have. There is no need to store voice data/conversations for later dissemination. For this requirement, the intent is that the Analyst node must be able to send its current state of specific data to selected nodes once, when desired. So, for instance, if the Analyst node has received a “Pushpin”, the Analyst node must be able to share this with other selected node(s) as desired—but the data does not need to be continually re-transmitted (just sent the one time when the Analyst chooses to do so).
Question 18:
Can the Crown provide an Excel file in order for bidders to accurately complete the Core Work and Optional Work pricing tables?
Answer 18:
Unfortunately, there is no Excel file available to submit the financial bid. Bidders should follow a similar layout as the one used in the Attachment 1 to Part 3 FINANCIAL BID PRESENTATION SHEET.
Question 19:
What is the Optional Work subtotal column supposed to total?
Answer 19:
Bidders are requested to discard the subtotal column. This column should have been removed from this table before the publication of the RFP.
Question 20:
Please confirm that there is no estimated level of effort required to be provided for the optional work.
Answer 20:
As optional work is not yet defined, Bidders are not required to provide estimated level of effort required for the optional work.
Question 21:
Should the Mobile R&D Specialist in the Optional Work table say "same as 1.1 above"?
Answer 21:
Yes, the “FAIHR Core Work Period” column of the Optional Work table, for Mobile R&D Specialist, should say "same as 1.1 above".
Question 22:
There is no indication in the RFP document on how a bidder must submit a classified bid. Can the Crown clarify what procedures the bidder has to follow in order to submit a classified bid?
Answer 22:
If a bidder includes classified information to the SECRET level in its bid, all part(s) of the bid containing such classified information must be submitted in a standalone envelope marked as follow: " This envelope contains SECRET information and can only be opened by an authorized person ". The Bidder must insert this standalone envelope into the main envelope used to submit its bid. Note that the main envelope used for the submission of the bid must be sealed, without security marks and appropriately addressed as per the instruction identified under Part 2, BIDDER INSTRUCTIONS of the RFP document.
Question 23:
It is our assumption, that in order to be deemed compliant that bidders must accept the Terms and Conditions identified in the RFP along with the SACC paragraphs that have been identified therein. If a bidder was to add additional SACC paragraphs to their offer, would this action render the proposal as being non-compliant, or would these additional terms be open for discussion/negotiation with the Crown?
Answer 23:
By submitting a bid, Bidders accept the Terms and Conditions identified in the RFP package, along with the SACC Manual clauses that have been identified therein. As this procurement process is competitive, Canada will not modify the terms and conditions included in the RFP after the closing date of this process. If Bidders would like to propose new terms or a modified version of, Canada invites them to submit their suggestions before the closing date of the solicitation. Canada will assess the request and, at its own discretion, may decide to update the RFP terms and conditions to reflect bidder’s requests, but only if those changes don’t give an advantage to a specific bidder, or tend to reduce the level of competition among industry members.
Question 24:
Can the Crown confirm who will be responsible for providing the demo resources as it is not clear in the requirements? This is to clarify whether these resources should be included in the Bidders’ estimate calculation.
Answer 24:
The bidder is to provide the devices, and conduct the demonstration as per SD 004. The demonstration location is per DM 001 at the end of each phase. Note that the bidder can make use of the set of devices that they have previously provided to DRDC as part of 3.2.2 in the SOW if desired.
Question 25:
The Description/Purpose portion of Data Item Description DM 002 – Data Collection Material is understood. The Preparation Instructions are not clear however, as they are not tied to any of the TEC3 requirements, nor are there any acceptance criteria indicating how the Crown plans to take delivery of the Data Collection application. The Preparation Instructions as written are very prescriptive, and could be interpreted as being eight (8) additional requirements that the bidder’s TEC3 solution must meet. All bidders will be doing data collection for their solutions prior to the demonstration portion of each phase. It is suggested that the Crown may wish to indicate the data to be collected versus the performance characteristics of the data collection application. Please clarify because the current DID Preparation Instructions could impact Bidders’ technical solution.
Answer 25:
The Data collection is part of the research app to collect raw data from the TEC3 solution. This app is for testing and future R&D development. Each phase – as per section 5.2.9, 5.3.9 and 5.4.9 the DM 002 ‘App’ will collect data from the network in the form of logs and statistics.
Question 26:
Requirement NETWORK.22 states that "A TEC3 node functioning as a gateway should aggregate data from one local group to share it with an analyst node or with another local group." We understand that the gateway will play a role in inter-group routing and routing traffic outside a group (e.g. to the analyst). We would be grateful to receive clarification regarding the types of data that it will be aggregating and who it will be transmitting this data to - beyond routing of data to other commanders or the analyst.
Answer 26:
Please see “TABLE 3: Data Dissemination guidance” (specifically, the data elements that include “Range” in the “Received by” column). If the “Range” selected is large enough that a gateway would be required to deliver the data elements to the intended recipients, then the gateway would aggregate and disseminate the information from one “local group” to another.
Question 27:
Requirement LRQUAL.7 calls for the GUI to display link and route quality overlays. An example is given in Figure 14, Page 33 of scientific report DRDC-RDDC-2014-R155. Is it intended that such GUI overlay displays would be a feature available for each basic node or only for the analyst? If such a feature is to be available for basic node GUIs, what is the scope of topology/overlay that it should display? i.e. is it for just the local group or beyond?
Answer 27:
The link and route quality overlays must be available to all nodes (basic, commander, analyst). For the basic nodes, the extent of this is dictated by the nodes for which they have link quality information. Information is distributed from all nodes based on the guidance in “Table 3: Data Dissemination Guidance”.
Question 28:
On page 13 of the RFP, Section 1.1 Labour Rates Resource Category states ‘Specify other resource category(ies)’. Are these other resource categories limited to the same list of categories identified on Page 15, or can the Bidder include other categories for example “Quality Assurance and Configuration Management”?
Answer 28:
For the Core Work only at Section 1.1, Labour Rates of ATTACHMENT 1 OF PART 3, FINANCIAL BID PRESENTATION SHEET, Bidder can propose any resource category that it see fit the most to carry out the Core work. Bidder is not limited to the list of category identified at Section 2.0 of ATTACHMENT 1 OF PART 3, FINANCIAL BID PRESENTATION SHEET.
Question 29:
The TEC3 RFP references Canada’s Ownership of Intellectual Property in SACC Clause General Conditions 2040 and Subsection 5.K K3410C. Section 4 of Subsection 5.K K3410C Licensing Requirements states:
“The Contractor grants to Canada a license to use the Background Information to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for Canada to exercise fully all its rights in the deliverables and in the Foreground Information. This license is non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, fully-paid and royalty-free.”
Does the Bidder have the right to sell / commercialize what is developed for the TEC3 program following the delivery of the TEC3 demonstrator product? Should Canada wish to commercialize the TEC3 demonstrator product, would Canada pay a license for the Background IP?
Answer 29:
Canada will own the Intellectual Property Rights in Foreground Information created under this requirement. That being said, as per mentioned during the Consultation process, Canada may grant a licence to enable the winning bidder to further develop or to commercialize it. This license will be negotiated with the winning bidder, if requested.
Question 30:
Further to Question and Answer 24 on Buy and Sell, can the Crown please confirm that
Defence Research and Development Canada
(DRDC) will be responsible for providing people resources (e.g. Soldiers) to wear and operate the equipment during this demonstration, or does Industry have to provide these resources?
Answer 30:
The Contractor does not have to provide the personnel to operate the equipment during the demonstrations. The Crown will provide these resources.
Question 31:
Further to Question and Answer 5 on Buy and Sell, where the Crown provided a link to guidelines for what constitutes cost, can the Crown please confirm that both Direct and Indirect Costs for the reference SACC Contract Cost Principles 1031-2, is allowable to be treated as Cost and not Markup?
Answer 31:
As the meaning of “Markup” can varies, please note the following: All administrative fees, overhead (when applicable), fringe benefits or any other operating costs to be incurred by the Bidder, that are not considered as “profit”, must be included in their prices/rates to be submitted as part of the financial bid. Profit must be provided separately, as indicated in the RFP. To verify if your costing elements are considered acceptable by Canada, please consult the SACC Manual clause 1031-2.
Question 32:
If software is used to implement the TEC3 classified requirements: 1- Will that software be considered classified to the level of the requirements? ; And, 2- Will it be necessary to develop the TEC3 software on a protected / classified software development system?
Answer 32:
The classification of the annex is informed by aggregation of information, meaning that individual elements in isolation may be less sensitive and code implementing these individual elements may be less sensitive than the aggregate classification of the annex.
We expect that software modules implementing elements of the features in the classified annex (during phase 4 of the project) will at a minimum be treated as controlled goods. Elements of strategic value to Canada may be classified depending upon implementation details. Performance testing results, discussion of performance or discussion of feature applications/use cases would be classified.
We reserve the right to modify these expectations in view of specific implementation choices to be discussed as the project progresses, and an environment in which policy on these matters is fluid.
Finally, note that the vast majority of the TEC3 software base and development (i.e., in phases 1 to 3) would not be controlled or classified.
Question 33:
In Paragraph 6.2 of Appendix 2 to Annex A: Regarding Go dark (Section 6.2). Does the go dark means no RF emission at all or there is a range that the system could emit some signal (Ex: 10m).
Answer 33:
The intent is that the devices will not emit any RF signaling from any layer of the protocol stack while in “go dark” mode. If devices have minor incidental emissions from electronic components (e.g., an internal capacitor discharging), this is inevitable.
Question 34:
Given that the Functional Specification for TEC3 does not provide Graphical User Interface (GUI) requirements for symbology, would the implementation of Mil-Std 2525b (tailored to suite tactical ground environment) be acceptable?
Answer 34:
If the proposed standard is adequate to meet requirement DISPLAY.4, which states, “TEC3 must make use of standards-based icons to display all geographically-based information”, it will be considered acceptable.
