CLRF_IC_Draft__RFP_Questions_Answers_-_1_Jul_14.pdf

Question Number Document / Section Paragraph Question/Issue/Concern Answers

1 SOW 3.1.3 Security Requirements

Our understanding of the SAASM GPS requirement is that contractors will need to have a valid COMSEC account number and be able to obtain and hold key material, which requires the contractor to be able to obtain and keep Secret material. However the GPS itself will not generate classified data, nor will any of the test results (ATP data for example) be classified. Does the Government agree with this understanding? Additionally, can the Government clarify whether SIPRNET access and CAC access are required to execute this contract and if classified data will be generated under this contract?

The Government agrees with your understanding that the requirement is that contractors will need to have a valid COMSEC account number and be able to obtain and hold key material, which requires the contractor to be able to obtain and keep Secret material; and that the GPS itself will not generate classified data, nor will any of the test results be classified. SIPRNET access and CAC access will not be required to execute this contract and classified data will not be generated under this contract. The SOW has been revised.

2 SOW 3.2.1 Contractor Responsibilities

"The government reserves the right to cancel any review."

This could happen and could represent a substantial investment if not cancelled prior to preparation. Recommend the statement be modified to insert a specific timeframe, for instance, 10 days, or the Government agrees to fund any incurred costs due to the cancellation.

No modification is necessary to the existing wording.

3 SOW

3.2.3 In-Process Review (IPR)

CDRL A003: Conference Agenda-IPR CDRL A004: Conference Minutes-IPR CDRL A005: Presentation Material-IPR

In the base year, the SOW requires PAC, TRR, and PRR. Does the Government wish to have to two additional IPR meetings during the base year or would the TRR and PRR suffice for IPRs during the base year?

Yes, the Government intends to have two (2) IPRs in addition to the PAC, TRR, and PRR during the base year.

4 SOW 3.3.2.2 Contractor Engineering Change Proposal

The paragraph requires the contractor to submit Class I ECPs through MEARS. Would electronic submission of DD Form 1692 direct to the COR with cover letter to the PCO be acceptable (the requirements of

CDRL B00A)?

SOW 3.3.2.2 has been revised to read, "The Contractor shall submit Class I ECPs using DD Form 1692".

5 SOW 3.3.2.2 Contractor Engineering Change Proposal

The paragraph states: “The Contractor shall submit Class II ECPs using DD Form 1692”. Typically DD Form 1692 is reserved for Class I changes due to the expense and complexity of completing the form. Would submitting Class II ECPs using Contractor formatted forms instead of DD Form 1692 be acceptable?

SOW 3.3.2.2 has been revised to read, "The Contractor shall submit Class II ECPs using DD Form 1692 or Contractor formatted forms containing all required information sufficient to review the ECP".

6 SOW 3.3.6.1 Commercial Drawings

Paragraph 3.3.6.1 requires contractors to provide drawings and evidence of compliance for commercial items. Our understanding of this requirement is that the contractor will provide Commercial drawings and compliance evidence for all commercially available items that have not otherwise been independently tested by the Government or governing body. Examples of these items might include the GPS Antenna and the Digital Magnetic Compass component. This would not, however, include the SAASM GPS, as this device was tested and approved by the Government under a separate activity. It would also not include items manufactured specifically for the CLRF IC as these items are being tested and verified through the First Article Test process. Does the Government concur with this interpretation of the requirement?

No, the Government does not concur with this interpretation. The requirement is for Commercial Drawings sufficient for provisioning and cataloging in accordance with the maintenance concept as outlined in SOW 3.3.6.1.

7 SOW 3.4.5 Contractor Logistics Support

“. . .the Contractor shall ship a condition code . . .”

This statement is open to interpretation. Is it the statements intention to mean repair and return in 30 days. As currently written, it could also mean ship to a subcontractor/supplier for repair within 30 days.

Recommend this statement be clarified.

The SOW has been revised to state, "The Contractor shall ship a condition code “A” asset to the Government within 30 calendar days of Contractor receipt of an inoperable CLRF IC."

M67854-14-R-6001 CLRF IC DRAFT RFP DOCUMENTS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 1 JUL 14

8 Section B CLIN 0008 Base year CLIN 008 indicates a minimum quantity of 50. Out years 1 through 4 specify a minimum quantity of 1. Are these minimum quantities correct?

Yes, these minimum quantities are correct.

9 Section B Year 4 Tab Year 4 of the Section B Spreadsheet has no entries for CLS Support. Is this an oversight? If not, is it the Government’s intention to transition to a different depot support vehicle for CLRF IC systems?

No, this is not an oversight. Yes, it is the Government's intention to transition to a different depot support vehicle. CLS will consist of three (3) one (1) year periods of performance (CLINs 1003, 2003, 3003).

10 Sections B and F CLINs 0005-0025 and 0030

Section F indicates the Government will purchase 10 FAT units and 90 LRIP units. The base year of the section B spreadsheet begins with Quantity 50 for item 0008 (Laser Rangefinder). We understand the Government’s intention is to issue separate delivery orders for the 10 FAT units and the 90 LRIP units? If so, should the procurement quantities for the base year be adjusted accordingly?

The minimum quantity for the entire life of the contract for CLIN 0008 is fifty (50). The Government intends to issue the inital Delivery Order (DO) for a quantity of fourteen (14) FAT Units and up to eighty-six (86) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Units.

11 Section F Deliveries and Performance

The delivery schedule depicts separate CLINs for FAT, 10 FAT Units, FUE, and 90 LRIP Units. Our understanding is that the Government will place Delivery Orders at the onset of the contract and that delivery of LRIP units shall commence upon successful completion of the FAT and FUE. Does the Government concur with this understanding?

This understanding is partially correct. The initial DO for a quantity of fourteen (14) FAT Units and up to eighty-six (86) LRIP Units will be placed at the onset of the contract. Delivery of units will commence upon Government approval of the FAT report.

12 Section H H Clause

The draft Government Purpose Rights clause appears to conflict with DFARS 227.7013-1(c) which states offerors shall not be required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed at private expense. Please confirm the Government does not intend to prohibit offerors from proposing items, components or processes developed at private expense solely because the Government's rights to use, modify, release, reproduce, perform, display, or disclose technical data pertaining to those items may be restricted. Further, please confirm offerors shall not be deemed non-responsive for asserting limited and restricted rights in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227- 7014 which may restrict the Government's rights related to technical data or computer software identified in the RFP as deliverable items or which may become a required deliverable through the Government's deferred ordering of technical data or computer software generated in the performance of the contract in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7027.

The Government has a requirement for the data specified in CDRLs B004-B006 to enable the CLRF IC to interface with external systems, and to operate and maintain the CLRF IC. The Government anticipates that most, if not all, of the data required by SOW paragraphs 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, and 3.3.6.2, and CDRLs B004-B006, will be either "form, fit, and function data" or data "necessary for installation, operation, maintenance, or training purposes," and as such, will be delivered with unlimited rights in accordance with 252.227-7013(b)(1). However, as H-7 indicates, the Government is willing to additionally accept data with Government Purpose Rights in fulfillment of these requirements. A proposal to provide data subject to limited rights would not be an acceptable approach to meeting these requirements.

The Government does not intend to require all data ordered under the deferred ordering clause to be delivered with at least Government Purpose Rights.

H-7 has been revised to make clear that this requirement excludes not only "detailed process or manufacturing data," but also data which the contractor demonstrates falls outside one of the categories of data listed at DFARS 252.227- 7013(b)(1).

13 Section L Table L-1 Volume Requirements

The technical volume is to contain a SAR (Safety Assessment Report) with a total page limit of 15. The existing SAR for our PDM exceeds this limit. Can the existing SAR be provided in response to this RFP given the existing SAR page count exceeds the page limit of 15 pages or is a summary of the existing Safety Assessment Report acceptable?

A summary is acceptable within the 15 page limit.

Section L Table L-1 Volume Requirements

The technical volume is to contain a Maintenance Support Plan with a total page limit of 10. The existing MSP for our PDM exceeds this limit.

Can the existing MSP be provided in response to this RFP given the existing MSP page count exceeds the page limit of 10 pages or is a summary of the existing MSP acceptable?

A summary is acceptable within the 10 page limit.

15 Section L Table L-1 Volume Requirements and 4.7.1 Performance

Does information such as IICamIP, SSCamIP, NVTHERM and NVIPM reports to meet the "substantiating technical data" requirement count towards page count or can they be included as Annexes to proposals?

Substantiating technical data, including IICamIP, SSCamIP, NVTHERM and NVIPM reports, count towards page count. L-4.7.1 covers the content of the Technical Proposal identified in Table L-1 as having a Total Page Limit of 80 pages. L-4.7.1 states, "The Offeror shall also provide substantiating technical data on the following specifications that are verified by analysis: Nighttime Target Recognition, Daytime Target Recognition".

16 Section L 4.7.1 Performance Can an offeror propose a CPSCM with changes to the threshold performance parameters (as specified in the RFP Performance Specification) that result in less than threshold performance?

The Offeror can propose a CPSCM with changes to the threshold performance parameters that result in less than threshold performance; but, per the FAR, performance parameters that result in less than threshold performance will be identified as a deficiency due to "material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement". Additionally, Section L-4.7 states, "The Technical Volume shall demonstrate an understanding of the Offeror’s ability to meet all of the requirements covered in the CLRF IC SOW and Performance Specification."

17 Section L 4.7.3 Product Demonstration Models Does delivery of the 2 PDMs also include 2 sets of all ancillary equipment, such as cables, cases, pouches, etc.?

Yes, delivery of the 2 PDMs includes all ancillary equipment (with the exception of the PLDR cable which is not required and has been removed from the Performance Specification).

18 Section L 4.7.3 Production Demonstration Models What test methods and procedures will the Government use to substantiate and validate performance claims contained in the CPSCM for the PDMs?

The Government's "Test Plan for the Common Laser Range Finder Integrated Capability (CLRF IC)" will be used to substantiate and validate performance claims contained in the CPSCM.

19 Section L 4.7.3 Production Demonstration Models Does the Government plan to perform environmental testing on the PDMs?

The Government reserves the right to verify the PDMs meet the claims of the CPSCM. If a PDM does not meet an environmental requirement, the Offeror should identify the environmental requirement that is not met by the submitted PDMs.

20 Section L 4.7.3 Product Demonstration Models

Do we need to remove any contractor information such as name and address from Quick Reference Card to maintain anonymity during warfighter evaluations of the devices? This section stipulates removable labels which identifies the Offeror.

Contractor information such as name and address can remain on the Quick Reference Card. Section L-

4.7.3 has been revised and there is no longer a requirement for removable labels which identifies the Offeror. There are no warfighter evaluations as part of the Source Selection. The Field User Evaluation will only be performed on the winning system. Evaluation of the PDMs is only for the purpose of substantiating and validating performance claims contained in the CPSCM.

21 Section L 4.7.3 Product Demonstration Models

Our understanding of the FDA labeling requirements is if a contractor has already submitted paperwork to the FDA and received an Accession number, that the PDM would have a Class 1 Laser label rather than the Caution / Exemption label. Does the Government concur with this understanding?

Yes, the Government concurs with this understanding. Section L-4.7.3 has been revised.

The Caution/Exemption label has been replaced with a requirement that "the PDMs shall have the labels required by 21 CFR 1010.2 and 1010.3 permanently affixed to the device housing."

22 Section L 4.9.2 Section B - Small Business Plan

Many major US military contractors participate in the Department of Defense (DoD) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 19.7 and 52.219-9, DFAR 252-219-7004. This plan is applicable to all Department of Defense prime contracts or subcontracts. This plan establishes company-wide goals for the use of small (SB), small disadvantaged (SDB), women-owned small businesses (WOSB), small businesses located in HUB Zones (SBHZ), service disabled veteran owned small businesses (SDVOSB), veteran owned small businesses (VOSB) and historically black colleges, universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI).

Is a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan all that the customer will require?

Yes, provided the requirements under Section L-

4.9.2 are met.

23 Section M 2 Evaluation Factors

The offeror is uncertain of the meaning of the following statement; "The importance of Price as a factor in the final determination will increase with the degree of equality in the Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Plan, and Energy factors." Please provide further clarification regarding the 'degree of equality' and 'final determination'.

This statement has been removed and the RFP revised.

24 Section M 2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Performance Please provide the relative importance of Energy (Factor 5) to the individual performance parameters listed in Section M paragraph 2.1.1

Energy is evaluated as a separate factor per ASN(RD&A) Memorandum, Energy Evaluation Factors in the Acquisition Process of 20 June 2011.

The relative importance of Factor 5 is identified in M-2.

25 Section M 2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Performance

PDMs are required as a part of the proposal submission. How is the demonstrated performance of the PDMs evaluated with respect to written performance claims? Are they more important? Higher weighted?

The PDMs will only be used to substantiate and validate performance claims contained in the CPSCM. Consequently, the PDMs are not more important nor weighted.

26 Section M 2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Performance Will the technical evaluation be determined by the quantity of Objective requirements met in the identified listed order of importance of M-2.1.1?

No, the performance portion of the technical evaluation will consider and evaluate the impact and value of the strengths resulting from the objective capabilities, rather than the quantity of objective requirements met.

To elaborate, the technical evaluation of the performance subfactor will be based not only on the impact and value of the strengths, but also on whether the impact of any weaknesses offsets the value of those strengths and the level of risk in the proposed approach.

27 Section M 2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Performance Which Performance Parameters are considered to be KPPs?

Which Performance Parameters are considered to be KPPs has no relevance to this effort because the Performance Specification does not identify any KPPs. The importance of the CLRF IC Performance Specification requirements for the purposes of evaluating proposals are listed in Section M-2.1.1 of the RFP.

28 Section M 2.2 Factor 2 - Price Are random quantities drawn for each CLIN and for each year? Yes, random quantities will be drawn for each CLIN and for each year.

29 Section M 2.2 Factor 2 - Price Will the random quantity drawn for a specific CLIN be the same quantity for all offerors?

Yes, the random quantity drawn for a specific CLIN will be the same quantity for all offerors.

30 Section M 2.2 Factor 2 - Price

"Where the quantity is stated as random, a random value between the minimum and maximum order quantity shall be drawn, not to exceed the contract maximums." Please confirm that random quantities used in the source selection will be the same for each offeror.

The Government confirms that random quantities used in the source selection will be the same for each offeror.

31 Section M 2.2 Factor 2 - Price

"The approach will base half of the price evaluation on the nominal profile listed in Column "H" in attachment (5) of section J..." Would the Government consider weighting the nominal price evaluation higher than 50% and reducing the "random value" (quantity) less than 50%?

No, the price evaluation criteria will remain unchanged.

32 Section M 2.2 Factor 2 - Price

Does the Government have available minimum labor qualifications identified for the Contractor Logistics Support and the Government Directed Engineering Studies? If so, will the Government provide these qualifications to the Offerors?

No, the Government does not have minimum labor qualifications identified for the Contractor Logistics Support and the Government Directed Engineering Studies. Labor qualifications for the Contractor Logistics Support should be consistent with the skills necessary to support the proposed maintenance strategy. Labor qualifications for Government Directed Engineering Studies require the skills to complete studies identified in section

3.3.2.1 of the SOW.

33 Performance Specification 3.4.5 Azimuth Upgradeability

Please provide the draft Interface Control Document (ICD) for the Azimuth and Inertial MEMS (AIM) Future Naval Capability (FNC) program.

As identified in the Performance Specification (2.2.2), a copy of this document can be obtained by written request from Marine Corps Systems Command, Procuring Contracting Officer.

Performance Specification 3.7.8 Glint Protection

"It is desired that the CLRF IC provide an additional measure of glint protection (Objective)." To meet the above requirement does additional glint protection need to be provided to the device's front objective lenses, or do celestial lenses need additional protection as well?

Providing glint protection for front objective lenses meets the objective requirement. Celestial lenses do not need additional protection to meet the objective requirement for glint protection.

Performance Specification 3.19.1 Eye Protection Can the Government provide the required Optical Density for Laser

Protection?

No. Optical Densities are required at two wavelengths such that they attenuate laser radiation levels below the Class I AEL at the aperture for an 80 mJ energy 1064 nm laser and an 860 nm 1 Watt power IR Pointer laser.

Performance Specification 3.19.2.3 Eye Relief

Can you clarify the intent of “eye relief”? Is this meant to be the formal definition of eye relief; the distance from the last optical surface to the eye, or is the intent supposed to be “available eye relief” to indicate distance from the final mechanical feature (metal or glass) to the eye?

Eye Relief in Performance Specification 3.19.2.3 is defined as the distance from the last optical surface of an eyepiece at which the user's eye can obtain the full viewing angle.

37 Performance Specification 4.1 First Article Testing

"The contractor is responsible for conducting First Article Testing to show compliance with sections of this performance specification. Proof of previous testing or analysis, with government oversight, which satisfies a First Article Test requirement may be submitted in lieu of current testing or analysis."

Would this be a unit-for-unit replacement of the requirement for 10 units to be FAT? For example, if two units went through FAT (such as the prototypes) would you then only have to FAT 8 units? Will these 10 units be counted in the deliverable quantity?

A unit for unit replacement for FAT is acceptable if it complies with SOW paragraph 3.3.9.1, "The FAT shall be conducted on systems built from their production line using their production processes."

Note: The required quantity for FAT in section 4.5 of the Performance Specification has increased to 14.

The 14 FAT units will be counted in the deliverable quantity.

38 Performance Specification 4.5 First Article Inspection

"Disposition of first article sample systems shall be as specified in the contract or purchase order". Recommend this be determined for the proposal as 10 units represent a substantial amount of money that could affect the low bid price depending on if they are counted in the delivery quantity or not. If not allowed to deliver the FAT units, then the quantity to deliver needs to be increased by 10 units.

Section 4.5 is only identifying that disposition is specified in the contract. Clause 52.209-3 of Section I states, "(e) Unless otherwise provided in the contract, and if the approved first article is not consumed or destroyed in testing, the Contractor may deliver the approved first article as part of the contract quantity if it meets all contract requirements for acceptance."

39 Performance Specification 4.8 Government Verification of Conformance

"Government also reserves the right to verify the contractor's implementation of, and adherence to, their manufacturing and process controls and to witness the contractor's performance of conformance inspection procedures". Recommend the existing wording be modified to indicate that the verification shall be accomplished without interference to the production line.

No modification is necessary to the existing wording.

40 CDRL CDRL B00A Engineering Change Proposal This CDRL addresses only Class II ECPs. Can the Government clarify the timing of Class I ECPs?

CDRL B00A has been revised to include "The contractor shall submit Class I ECPs upon identification of need." and "The Government requires 30 calendar days to review Class I ECPs."

41 CDRL CDRL B00A Engineering Change Proposal

Block 13 states “The Government requires 30 calendar days to review and approve/disapprove the class designation of the ECP. The contractor shall submit final 14 calendar days after receipt of Government comments.” There is a concern that this will cause a delay in production if any Class II changes are required. Is it acceptable for the Government to provide concurrence on ECP classification within 10 calendar days?

In addition, does the Government agree that approval of Class II designation is the same as concurrence?

CDRL B00A has been revised to include "The Government requires 14 calendar days to review and approve/disapprove the class designation of the ECP submitted as Class II." Yes, the Government agrees that approval of Class II designation is the same as concurrence.

42 CDRL CDRL B009 Hazardous Materials Management Plan

Would the Government agree to change submittal date of the HMMP from 20 to 45 calendar days after PO to be consistent with the submittal date of the Safety Assessment Report Update (CDRL B010)?

No. The intent of the SAR is to summarize all safety data and analyses that have been produced to date. So the HMMP was intentionally required to be delivered PRIOR TO the SAR so that the HMMP data could be reported out in the SAR.

43 CDRL

SOW 3.3.9.3 Acceptance Testing

SOW 3.3.9.4

CDRL B011 FAT Procedure CDRL B012 FAT Report CDRL B013 Acceptance Test Procedure CDRL B014 Acceptance Test Report

CDRL B011 references SOW 3.3.9.3, but SOW 3.3.9.3 references CDRL B013 and CDRL B014.

CDRL B012 references SOW 3.3.9.3, but SOW 3.3.9.3 references CDRL B013 and CDRL B014.

CDRL B013 references SOW 3.3.9.4; which does not exist.

CDRL B014 references SOW 3.3.9.4; which does not exist.

CDRLs have been revised to correct errors.

CDRL B011 references SOW 3.3.9.1.

CDRL B012 references SOW 3.3.9.1.

CDRL B013 references SOW 3.3.9.3.

CDRL B014 references SOW 3.3.9.3.

Sheet1