CAC2S_RFP_QAs_Round_3_FBO.pdf

Document/Section Paragraph/Ref Question/Issue/Concern Gov't Response

49 RFP 3.4.4.18-20

Assuming a complete RMF package with no unacceptable HIGH findings open, what is the time span from RMF package delivery to granting an IATT/providing a

Certification Letter by the USMC?

a. Assuming the CAC2S FDU is already Certified and Accredited (C&A), will the

Government be providing the existing C&A body of evidence to the Contractor upon contract award in support of obtaining a Guest System Authority to Operate (ATO) or

Interim Authority to Test (IATT) at the Contractor's Facility?

b. If CAC2S FDU is not already C&A, how many calendar days should the Contractor estimate in the IMS from the time the C&A Package get submitted to the USMC

Designating Accrediting Authority (DAA) until an issuance of an ATO or IATT is provided to the Contractor?

The Government interprets this question to request clarification as to whether or not the AC2S has a current ATO; If not-what is the timeline to receive an IATT?

Yes; The system has a current ATO. Supporting documentation will be provided at contract award.

51 Section B

The government provided prior guidance on the Draft RFP related to estimating effort for SW Sustainment as follows:

For estimating purposes, when TRs are included in a software build, the following assumptions should be made for each associated build:

a) There will be 50 TRs included in each build

b) Of the 50 TRs,

1. 10% will be maintain a complexity of 'hard', defined as requiring more than 80 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

2. 50% will be maintain a complexity of 'medium', defined as requiring less than 80 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

3. 40% will be maintain a complexity of 'easy', defined as requiring less than 16 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify.

Are these assumptions still valid?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, these assumptions are still valid. L-1 Cost Template has been updated to include this guidance and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

52 Solicitation Document / Section C 3.4.3.4.1 What is the frequency of the ESOH Working Group?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, it is anticipated that the ESOH Working Group will meet quarterly. SOW Section

3.4.3.4.1 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

53 Technical Data Package Two items are end of life and cannot be ordered: Server Hard Drives (P/N 342-2100) and Transit Case (P/N CF131232). Are these being replaced to different parts?

The part number identified (342-2100) for the Server Hard Drive was an item in the draft TDP previously provided. The current Attachment

(2)-TDP posted with the solicitation no longer contains this part number.

CF131232 (Drawing Number: 13007A0217) is listed as an alternate part number for the Gore filter in the current TDP.

CAC2S RFP M67854-16-R-0217 Request for Clarifications Responses Round 3

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

55 Technical Data Package

The RFP contains a TAA clause however the following P/Ns are made in China:

HWS1000-12HD, HWS1000-24HD, HWS1500-24HD, HWS300-24HD, and SL-1204-

GREEN. Are these the correct part numbers?

Yes; These are the correct part numbers for HWS1000-12HD, HWS1000-24HD, HWS1500-24HD, HWS300-24HD. SL-1204-GREEN was an item in the draft TDP previously provided. The Government understands that these parts are available from TAA compliant sources. The proper part number for the Chair is listed in the

Attachment (2)-TDP provided with the solicitation.

63 Attachment 25 Pg. 1, Row 1

Attachment 25 lists Rational Team Concert as the configuration management and corrective action system. It is also referenced in the SOW Section 3.4.30 (Synergy

Change) as the required CM tool.

1. Are the licenses required to set up and run the IBM Rational Change\Synergy product suites to be provided as GFE? If so, will the USG provide updated

Attachment (1), GFE?

2. Will the existing database schema and all existing data be transferred intact to the new CAC2S integrator?

3. Are the licenses for all COTS products listed in attachment 25 already owned by the CAC2S program office and to be transferred to the new CAC2S integrator?

1. No licenses are required. The successful offeror will need to have a Common Access Card (CAC) in order to be granted access. The

Program Office will assist the successful offeror in obtaining proper

CAC access after contract award.

2. Data will not be transferred. The successful offeror will be given access to the existing database with appropriate permissions to view the current CM library.

3. Applicable GFE (to include any license requirements) will be provided to the successful offeror.

65 Attachment TDP

Detailed drawings for part # 0185-897 referenced in TDP drawing #’s 13007A0017;

13007A0010; 13007A0013; 13007A0011; and 13007A0012 AND part # 0185-947 referenced in TDP drawing #’s 13007A0015 and 13007A0017 are not provided in the

TDP package. Please provide the detailed drawings for these items to support competitive bidding?

The referenced items (Part #0185-897 and #0185-947) are piece part numbers. There are no drawings associated with these items. The associated CAGE Code listed in the parts list identify the source.

78 SOW 3.4.4 (pg. 41)

So that offerors might provide the most accurate and constrained proposal possible for CPFF CLINs 0007: Engineering Studies, 0008: GFP Repair, and 0009: Software

Sustainment (and their related option CLINs); it is requested that the USG provide further guidance? The SOW processes are clearly defined; however, the volume of effort is ambiguous. This ambiguity may result in widely varying CPFF CLIN prices from offerors that will increase the subjectivity in evaluation by the USG.

CLIN 0007: Engineering Studies are estimated to be medium complexity (320) hours and will be administered via Technical

Instruction.

CLIN 0008: GFP repair is an estimated cost of $50K per year.

CLIN 0009: This CLIN will be administered via Technical Instruction.

1) Each software build will require cybersecurity updates in accordance with the System Security Plan.

2) Every other software build will include Trouble Report (TR) corrections in addition to the cybersecurity updates. For proposal purposes only, when TRs are included in a software build, the following assumptions should be made for each associated software build:

a) There will be (50) TRs included in each build

b) Of the (50) TRs,

1. 10% will be maintain a complexity of 'hard', defined as requiring more than (80) hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

2. 50% will be maintain a complexity of 'medium', defined as requiring (16 - 80) hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

3. 40% will be maintain a complexity of 'easy', defined as requiring less than (16) hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify.

79 SOW 3.3.1.12.1 (pg. 31)

For Corrective Maintenance and CLIN 0008 GFP Repair do we assume that the proposal submittal for this effort to be zero? If not, what is the guidance for estimating?

No. For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, the estimated cost of GFE Repair is $50K per year.

88 Section I Pg 73

FAR 52.227-3 Patent Indemnity APR 1984: Due to the COTS integration nature of the CAC2S scope of work, offeror recommends the addition of:

Alternate II (Apr 1984). As prescribed in 27.201-2(c)(2), add the following paragraph

(c) to the basic clause: (c) This patent indemnification shall cover the following items:

supplies sold or offered for sale to the public in the commercial open market.

Concur; FAR 52.227-3 Alt. II Patent Indemnity has been added to

Section I and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

97 Section F or I all

Offeror observes that the FAR clause at 52.249-14 – Excusable Delays (APR 1984) is not present in the RFP. For the protection of offerors, resultant awardee(s), and the

USG; it is recommended that this clause be added.

FAR 52.249-14 - Excusable Delays (APR 1984) has been incorporated in Section I and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

For estimating purposes, when TRs are included in a software build, should the following assumptions be made for each associated build?

a) There will be 50 TRs included in each build

b) Of the 50 TRs,

1. 10% will be maintain a complexity of 'hard', defined as requiring more than 80 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

2. 50% will be maintain a complexity of 'medium', defined as requiring less than 80 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify;

3. 40% will be maintain a complexity of 'easy', defined as requiring less than 16 hours to analyze, implement, integrate and verify.

See response to Q#51.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, these assumptions are still valid. L-1 Cost Template has been updated to include this guidance and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

Attachment 24, Software Development

Strategy, section 3.0, “Definition of the

Common Software Baseline” states: …

Engineering analysis will be performed with consideration of best value to the

CAC2S and the Marine Corps to determine the secondary CSCIs required to complete the CSB definition.

Section 3.0

Question: Will the offeror be responsible for the engineering trade studies associated the above stated “engineering analysis” or will this analysis be performed by the government?

Per Attachment (24)-CAC2S Software Development Strategy, Paragraph 3.0, Engineering analysis is to be performed by the

Government. Support to CSB efforts is expected from the successful offeror per SOW Section 3.4.4.3.

Attachment 24, Software Development

Strategy, section 6.1, “Software

Upgrades”, states: … The Contractor shall participate in the external interface

IPTs/WGs to track/manage changes to the interfaces. The Contractor shall be a participant in the SoS WG and CAC2S

CCB established by the AC2SN PMO.

Section 6.1 In order to understand the effort required can the government provide a better estimate of effort beyond, “as necessary”?

For proposal purposes only, the SOS Working Group meets bi-weekly, with a meeting duration of approximately (2) hours. The SOS

Working Group is the forum to discuss, track, and manage changes for all system interfaces.

110 Section I Clauses

The version of DFARS clause 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information and Cyber Incident Reporting dated December 2015 has been superseded by an updated version of the clause released 21 October 2016. Will the

Government include the updated version of the clause in the RFP?

Yes; The Government has updated Section I to include the October

2016 version of DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered

Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting and is included in

RFP Amendment 0002.

116 Attachment 7 CSDR Plans CSDR Plan does not account for GFP Repair. How should this CLIN/WBS be mapped into the CSDR WBS for reporting?

The offeror shall include GFP Repair as a sub-element under each variant. The CSDR Plan will be updated during the Post Award

Conference.

121 Attachment A, Data Item A027

A027, Information Assurance

Design Review Information

Package

There is no Data Acquisition Document Number, or specification provided for the

CDRL A027 contents or requirements. Please provide a Data Acquisition Document

Number, or Specification, for this CDRL item.

CDRL A027-Design Review Information Package (DRIP) has been updated to reflect the Data Acquisition Document

Number/Specification information required and is included in RFP

Amendment 0002.

122 SOW SOW 3.4.4.19

SOW 3.4.4.19 Information Assurance Requirements, 5th paragraph states: "The

Contractor shall complete and submit the government provided Information

Assurance Design Review Information Package (DRIP) in accordance with CDRL

A027".

Request a copy of the "government provided" DRIP A027.

SOW Section 3.4.4.19 has been updated to clarify the contractor shall complete and provide to the Government the DRIP provided in

Attachment (51)-MCSC DIACAP Documentation Information

Assurance Design Review Information Package per CDRL A027.

These changes are included in RFP Amendment 0002.

127 SOW SOW 3.4.4.26

Please provide a duration estimate for each G/ATOR integration and CEC test event for each Software Maintenance CLIN, for estimating and scheduling purposes.

For all events except the G/ATOR IOT&E, the contractor is required to provide on-site support for the initial (2) weeks of each event. The

Contractor will provide on-site support for the (8) weeks of G/ATOR

IOT&E.

128 SOW SOW 3.4.3.1 What is the duration of the government PIV?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, initial PIV will take approximately (20) work days. PIV for subsequent lots will take approximately (5) working days to complete.

129 SOW SOW 3.4.4.3

On the Draft RFP, the Government had provided guidance it is estimated there would be 50 TRs per build, 10% of those "hard" (requiring 80 hours or more to analyze, implement, integrate, and verify), 50% "medium" (requiring 16 to 80 hours), and 40%

"easy" (requiring less than 16 hours).

Does this guidance still apply for the final RFP, and can an upper bound on expected effort "hard" TRs be provided?

See response to Q#51.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, these assumptions are still valid. L-1 Cost Template has been updated to include this guidance and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

131 SOW SOW 3.4.4.3

Performing analysis of TRs as assigned by the CCB can be a significant activity. The current SOW statement is unbounded, making it difficult to estimate costs.

Recommend the Government provide a quantity of TRs per quarter to require analysis, and a easy/medium/hard complexity scale for the expected analysis of these

TRs.

See response to Q#51.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, these assumptions are still valid. L-1 Cost Template has been updated to include this guidance and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

133 SOW 3.4.4.23

Regarding SOW 3.4.4.23, how many CTN/SDP-S updates are estimated for each year?

For purpose of proposing the requirement only, the Government anticipates there will be (3) Cyber and (1) tactical software/Cyber release for CTN/SDP-S updates per year. SOW Section 3.4.4.23 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

136 SOW SOW 3.4.4.11

SOW 3.4.4.11 does not state which version of the TPS-80 IDD is required to be supported. Please clarify.

Currently the TPS-80 IDD Rev C is required to be supported, Doc

8486799, Rev C of 21 Oct 2013 . The Government anticipates this will migrate to updated versions of the IDD. SOW Section 2.1 and

SOW Section 3.4.4.11 have been updated and Section J has been revised to include Attachment (52)-Ground Air Task Oriented Radar

(G/ATOR) to CAC2S/CTN Interface Design Description. These changes are included in RFP Amendment 0002.

139 SOW 3.4.4.3

The SOW states "The Contractor shall deliver the following CDRLs with each

Software Maintenance Release".

Will the Government deliver the following CDRLs reflecting the current systems baseline at the time of contract award: E001 COTS Manual and Supplemental/Data, E002 Interactive Electronic Technical Manual Work Packages, E003 Lesson Plans, E004 Instructional Visual Aids, E005 Trainee Guides.

The Government will provide the latest data to be used as the basis for contractor update for CDRLs E001, E002, E003, E004 and E005 at contract award.

140 SOW 3.4.4.3

The SOW states "The Contractor shall transition software sustainment to the

Increment 1 Common Software Baseline beginning with Software Maintenance

Release 3.0R8. 3.0R8 shall support both CAC2S Phase 1 and Phase 2 systems."

Will the Government deliver the following CDRLs reflecting the common software baseline at the time of contract award: E001 COTS Manual and Supplemental/Data, E002 Interactive Electronic Technical Manual Work Packages, E003 Lesson Plans, E004 Instructional Visual Aids, E005 Trainee Guides

The Government will provide the latest data to be used as the basis for contractor updates for CDRLs E001, E002, E003, E004 and E005 at completion of the Common Software Baseline (CSB), estimated to be Q1FY18.

147 Attachments TDP What is the status of the missing 13007A0428 drawing? Will the program office be providing? If so, when?

No, the program office will not provide drawing 1300A0428. This drawing will be deleted from the Attachment (2) -TDP. The updated

Attachment (2) -TDP will be provided at contract award.

149 Attachments Attachment 1 – GFE Listing

Does the program office have any information on how you expect the GFE trailers would be used so that we can properly plan for the unit in our manufacturing and integration approach?

There are no requirements at this time for trailers. The Trailers listed in the Attachment (1)-GFP list have been removed and were included in RFP Amendment 0001.

Att 24: SW Dev Strategy

SOW

SDS 5.2, 5.3 & 5.4

SOW 3.4.4.6

The SW Development Strategy (SDS) shows build 3.0R4E delivered 3 months ARO.

Also, the SDS shows the first Common SW baseline delivery in build 3.0R7 12 months ARO. SOW 3.4.4.3 states that the first Software Maintenance Release is 6 months ARO. SOW 3.4.4.3 states the first Common SW baseline is 3.0R8.

Recommendation: The Software Development Strategy document should be updated to reflect the dates and builds in the SOW.

SOW Section 3.4.4.3 for delivery of the first SW release (6) months after contract award applies. The timeline in Attachment (24)-CAC2S

Software Development Strategy is for planning purposes and will be baselined upon contract award.

151 Att 1: GFE List FEI tab

The GFE list shows 41 SAASM cards delivered as GFE. CAC2S has two GPS receivers per system.

Recommendation: The Government should update the GFE list to provide 82

SAASM cards as GFE.

Concur; There are (2) FEI Zyfers in the system, voice and data time servers. The Attachment (1)-GFP list has been updated specify (2)

SASM cards per system.

152 Section F Delivery Information Page 61-62

CLIN 0206-Software Sustainment option period ends on 7/31/2020. CLIN 0305-

Software Sustainment begins on 4/1/2020. There is an overlap in sustainment.

Recommendation: Please verify PoP durations for CLINs 0206 & 0305.

See response to Q#144.

Yes; These CLINS should be sequential. CLIN 0305 PoP is 01 Aug

2020 to 30 Sep 2021. Section F was updated and included in RFP

Amendment 0001.

153 SOW 3.4.3.1 Page 37

SOW 3.4.3.1 Physical Item Verification (0002, 0101,0201, 0301) states that the PIV shall be conducted on the first production of each FDU (V)1 delivered. The first production FDU V(1) to be built and delivered in Lot 1 is under CLIN 0001.

Question: Which FDU V(1) is the PIV conducted; CLIN 0001 FAT V(1), or first production in CLIN 0002 FDU V(1)?

The PIV for Lot 1 will be conducted on the first production unit from

CLIN 0002.

Attachment 7 Cost & Software Data

Reporting (CSDR) Plan Resource Distribution Tables

The Resource Distribution Table included as a part of the CSDR Plan appears to be a

Government report that utilizes input from contractors CSDR (Form 1921's) monthly submissions.

Recommendation: Confirm that the RDT is a Government report.

Concur; The RDT is a Government report. The Attachment (7)-Cost &

Software Data Reporting (CDSR) Plan was provided for informational purposes only.

155 SOW 3.3.1.11.2.3 Page 30; Para 2, 5th bullet

Per SOW 3.3.1.11.2.3 "Contractor shall flow down the CSDR reporting to subcontractors at any tier with a subcontract that exceeds $20M.

This threshold is in contradiction with Section I, page 100-101, DFAR Clause 252.234-

7003 which states that "CSDR reporting will be required for subcontractors at any tier with a subcontract that exceeds $50 Million."

Question: Please clarify if CSDR reporting is required for subcontractors whose value exceeds $20M or $50M.

CSDR reporting is required for subcontractors whose value exceeds

$20M, per DoD 5000.02.

156 Section L Page 120: para 9

"The unit cost should be calculated by variant and by Lot (including all options CLINs

0010, 0011, 0101, 0102, 0109, 0110, 0201, 0202, 0207, 0208, 0301, and 0306) in

BY17$, BY18$, BY19$, and BY20$, respectively."

Recommendation: "BY" appears to have been entered in error. Please clarify if "BY", should be FY, CFY or GFY?

Concur; Section L-2.2, Vol. I and Section M.2 Affordability have been updated to specify Government Fiscal Year (GFY) for unit cost references and are included in RFP Amendment 0002.

158 Attachment L-1 Volume III Cost Template Unit Cost Breakdown Tab

The Unit Cost Breakdown Table for Lot 1 requires bidder to cost out 7-AC2S V(1), 3-

AC2S V(2), & 2-AC2S V(3). In review of section B 3-AC2S V(3) are to be costed. It appears that CLIN 0011 was omitted from Cost Template.

Recommendation: Please advise on how many AC2S V(3)'s shall be priced for LOT

1.

See response to Q#69.

Correct quantities for unit cost are updated in the L-1 Cost Template and included in RFP Amendment 0002.

159 SOW 3.5.2 Attachment 4(a)

1. There are 4 items in the AC2S Retrofit Spares Attachment 4(a). Items 1, 2, 3 reference the older part numbers that are superseded in 13007A0410, 13007A0411, 13007A0412 respectively. The last item, Server, is listed as Dell R630 (13007A0071,) appears correct.

Recommendation: Please clarify that the items listed are the correct part numbers.

2. Each item in the Attachment 4(a) list has a corresponding 13007A0### drawing which calls out nameplates for the equipment.

Recommendation: Please clarify if the parts listed in Attachment 4(a) should be:

13007A0410, 13007A0411, 13007A0412, 13007A0071, to include the nameplates

Attachment (4A)-Retrofit Spares List has been updated to include drawing numbers and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

As noted in the Attachment (2)-TDP pertinent drawings:

1) A0410 part number is Dell 7510

2) A0411 part number is Dell 7710

3) A0412 part number is Panasonic CF-3118488KM

4) A0071 part number is Dell R630

160 Section l Model Contract Will the Government be providing a "writeable" file of the Model Contract Sections to be filled-in as instructed?

The RFPs downloaded can be made writeable using the following instructions:

1. From the review tab select "Restrict Editing"

2. Select "Stop Protection"

3. "Save As" and select a file name

161 Section l Model Contract Is Section H that is a required section of the Model Contract intentionally omitted from the RFP Final Package?

Yes; Section H was intentionally omitted from the final RFP package.

162 Solicitation Document / Section J Attachment 1

In reference to the response to Question 30 of CAC2S RFP M67854‐16‐R‐0217

Request for Clarifications Responses Round 1, are there any government enterprise license agreements of which the offeror can take advantage?

Yes; Offerors may procure Microsoft Office products via the DoD

Enterprise Agreement. Instructions for ordering software will be provided at contract award.

163 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.3.4.1

Paragraph 3.4.3.4.1 states the contractor shall use the Government SSPP

(Attachment 11) as guidance to develop the ESOH that must be submitted with the proposal. The Government SSPP, paragraph 4., applies directly to the contractor’s effort in developing it’s ESOH. Within this SSPP paragraph, there are seven (7) analysis reports required (letters a. through g.). Since this solicitation is a build to print and the SSPP presents “Contractor Responsibilities” for the ESOH for design through production, other than the HHA (CDRL A013) and HMMP (CDRL A014), what, if any, of the remaining five listed analyses apply?

Attachment (11)-CAC2S System Safety Program Plan is provided as reference for program safety for CAC2S. The offeror is responsible for the Health Hazard Assessment Report (as specified in SOW Section

3.4.3.4 and CDRL A013) and the Hazardous Materials Management

Plan (as specified in SOW Section 3.4.3.5 and CDRL A014).

164 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.3.2

Paragraph 3.4.3.2 cites then newly released ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001:2015 version.

Contractors that are third party certified to ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001:2008 have until

September 2018 to transition and be certified to this new version. If the contractor’s third party certification is current and advertised as Q9001:2008, does that disqualify that contractor?

Contractors that are third party qualified to ISO:9001:2008 will not be disqualified. The offeror shall address their plan for achieving

ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001:2015 by Sep 2018 in their Attachment (44)-

Quality Assurance Program Plan that is to be submitted with the proposal.

165 TDP

The following Marine Core part numbers with Cage Code 01365 are called out on parts list but drawings are not supplied in the TDP and are not listed on the GFM list.

Will the government provide these required drawings?

09026B1112

12010V0002

12010V1000

12010V2000

12010V4000

12010V3000

These are CAC2S Phase 1 components that were re-used for Phase

2. The Attachment (1)-GFP List has been updated to include the requested drawings and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

166 Contract Section B

Should the Contractor assume the Engineering studies are anticipated to be of medium complexity not to exceed 320 man-hours to complete? Should the anticipated man-hours be applied to each Engineering Studies CLIN (0007, 0106, 0204, 0303)?

See response to Q#78.

167 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.26

Should the Contractor assume the following duration times for each G/ATOR integration event for estimating and scheduling purposes?

Tentative G/ATOR Events/Dates

G/ATOR DT-C1

G/ATOR # 1 Beaufort, SC 3rd/4th QTR FY17 (8 weeks)

G/ATOR # 2 Camp Pendleton, CA 3rd QTR FY17 (3 weeks)

G/ATOR # 2 Yuma, AZ 4th QTR FY17 (8 weeks)

G/ATOR OA

G/ATOR # 1 Yuma, AZ (WTI) 4th QTR FY17 – 1st QTR FY18 (8 weeks)

G/ATOR DT&E

G/ATOR # 1 Yuma, AZ (WTI) 3rd QTR FY18 (8 weeks)

G/ATOR IOT&E

G/ATOR # 1/2 Yuma, AZ (WTI) 4th QTR FY18 – 1st QTR FY19 (8 weeks)

See response to Q#127.

These events were identified from the Q&A for the Draft RFP review with industry and posted 29 Jul 2016 and remain as the planned schedule. For the following events , the contractor is required to provide on-site support for the initial (2) weeks of each event.

- G/ATOR DT-C1

G/ATOR # 1 Beaufort, SC 3rd/4th QTR FY17

G/ATOR # 2 Camp Pendleton, CA 3rd QTR FY17

G/ATOR # 2 Yuma, AZ 4th QTR FY17

- G/ATOR OA

G/ATOR # 1 Yuma, AZ (WTI) 4th QTR FY17 – 1st QTR FY18

- G/ATOR DT&E

G/ATOR # 1 Yuma, AZ (WTI) 3rd QTR FY18 (8 weeks)

The G/ATOR IOT&E to be conducted at Yuma, AZ (WTI) 4th Qtr.

FY18 - 1stQTRFY19 is the CAC2S Phase 2 Follow-on OT&E event, therefore, the contractor shall provide on-site support the full 8-week duration of the event.

168 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.3.4 Should the Contractor assume one day per quarter for the ESOH Working Group

Meetings?

See response to Q#52.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, it is anticipated that the ESOH Working Group will meet quarterly. SOW Section

3.4.3.4.1 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

169 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.11 Should the Contractor assume 3 hours every other week for the System of Systems

Working group?

See response to Q#103.

For proposal purposes only, the SOS Working Group meets bi-weekly, with a meeting duration of approximately (2) hours. The SOS

Working Group is the forum to discuss, track, and manage changes for all system interfaces. SOW Section 3.4.4.11 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

170 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.3.1

Should the Contractor assume the initial PIV will take approximately 20 work days to complete? For subsequent option lots, should the Contractor assume the PIV will take approximately 5 working days to complete?

See response to Q#128.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, initial PIV will take approximately (20) work days. PIV for subsequent lots will take approximately (5) working days to complete.

171 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.20 Should the Contractor assume the Government Cybersecurity testing will take approximately 20 workdays to complete?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, Government

Cybersecurity testing is anticipated to take (15) work-days.

172 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.21 Should the Contractor assume the Government Code Audit will take approximately 20 workdays to complete?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, Government Code

Audit is anticipated to take (5) work days

173 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.26 For the G/ATOR testing identified in 3.4.4.26, what are the number of visits per location and the duration per option year?

See response to Q#127.

For all events except the G/ATOR IOT&E the contractor is required to provide on-site support for the initial (2) weeks of each event. The

Contractor will provide on-site support for the (8) weeks of G/ATOR

IOT&E.

174 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.3

Can you clarify the length of the base Period of Performance. Is it 12 months with only three software maintenance releases since the first release occurs at month

6 per Section 3.4.4.3 of the SOW?

Yes; There will be (4) maintenance releases during the base year

(PoP Apr 2017- Jul 2018).

175 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.4.3 What is the definition of an "engineering release" per section 3.4.4.3 of the SOW

The engineering release is an informal build to be used by the

Government to assess the contractor's ability to produce a stable, reliable, and mature software build. This build will not be fielded. The

Government will test the engineering release via established processes and procedures and determine its releasability.

176 Do the code scan findings need to be remediated by the first formal release?

Findings will be documented via established CM processes

(Attachment 8-AC2SN Configuration Management Plan) and scheduled for remediation IAW the established software release schedule.

177 Requirements/ SOW 3.0 3.4.3.6

Is the reference to DODI 5200.01, DoD Information Security Program and Protection of Sensitive Compartmented Information an error? SCG (attachment 12) does not indicate that access to SCI is required.

SCG is correct in that no SCI is required. Reference to DoDI 5200.01

DoD Information Security Program and Protection of Sensitive

Compartmented Information, has been removed from SOW Section

3.4.3.6 and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

178 SOW 3.4.4.4

"The Contractor shall acquire and manage the software licenses, including yearly support/maintenance agreements for software delivered under this CLIN. " Are software licenses to be figured into the FDU CLINS or the SW maintenance CLIN?

These license costs should be captured under the FDU CLINs since it is included as part of the unit cost per L-2.2, Vol 1(d).

179 SOW 3.4.4.27

"The Contractor shall provide CAC2S Engineering Support capability to perform root cause analysis on problems not resolved by the MCTSSA Help Desk." Will the government be providing plug numbers to use to estimate engineering support?

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, the Government anticipates (3) analyses per year of medium complexity not to exceed

(300) hours per year.

180 SOW 3.4.4.3

"Each Software Maintenance Release shall include the delivery of source code for non-commercial software in accordance with Software Maintenance Release CDRL

A016, release media in the form of installation “gold disk”..." What type of media (DVD or HDD) is required for software deliverables and in what quantity?

Per SOW Section 3.4.4.3, CDRL A016 is a requirement. CDRL A016

Block 14 specifies the number of copies and to whom delivery is to be made; Block 16 specifies the delivery medium to be DVDs.

181 SOW 3.4.4.22

"For planning purposes each TIM is expected to last no more than three (3) days. It is expected that half of the TIMs will be conducted at the Contractor facility and the other half at a government designated facility." What will be the location of these government designated facility TIMs so the Contractor can estimate travel expenses?

It is anticipated that the TIMs will be conducted at NSWC Crane, Indiana.

182 SOW 3.4.4.22

"The Contractor shall provide SME support for the following: Setup of the CAC2S SIL to include the identification of recommended electronic components, simulators, and stimulators." Is it the intent of the government that the contractor travel to the government designated facility to facilitate the setup of the SILs?

Yes; The contractor shall travel to support the transition.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, the Government designated activity is NSWC Crane, IN. It is anticipated that the transition period will require (15) working days.

183 SOW 3.4.4.20

"The Government conducts independent cybersecurity tests against the Contractor’s software builds. Upon government request, the Contractor shall provide use of the

Contractor’s facility and all CAC2S system equipment. The Contractor shall have the

CAC2S System Integration Lab (SIL) configured to conduct cybersecurity testing."

How often are these cybersecurity tests and how long does the Contractor need to plan to support the test?

See response to Q#171.

For the purpose of proposing the requirement only, Government

Cybersecurity testing is anticipated to take (15) work-days.

CCTs are conducted every formal delivery.

184 SOW 3.4.3.1

Physical Item Verification - "During the PIV, the Government will establish a high level of confidence in the physical configuration of the as-built, as-designed, and as-maintained version of the system in order to finalize the product baseline" Will the government be performing destructive analysis on the completed system to verify tolerances and other TDP requirements or will the government perform the audit by analysis of production documentation?

Destructive analysis of the AC2S is not required for PIV. The

Government will audit tolerances by analysis of production documentation.

185 TDP A0102 / A0202

Monitor Kit is listed with cage code of 01365 and Part number of 09026B1112. This is insufficient information to identify the make and model of the monitor kit. This is a

USMC Logistics Command Cage Code. Please provide guidance on vendor.

Se e response to Q#165.

These are CAC2S Phase 1 components that were re-used for Phase

2. The Attachment (1)-GFP List has been updated to include the requested drawings and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

186 Solicitation Document / Attachment (06) Page 14 of Attachment (06) Risk Management Plan is missing. Please provide the missing page.

See response to Q#56.

An updated Attachment (6)-AC2SN Risk Management Plan including page 14 has been provided to offerors via AMRDEC Safe and was incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001.

187 Solicitation Document / Section L L-2.2 Go/No-Go item b and e

There appears to be significant overlap in the definitions of "Manufacturing Labor" and "Integration, Assembly, Test and Checkout". Can the Government clarify the difference between the types of labor allocated to each category and where/how this information is to be displayed? Will completion of the cost formats and forms 1921 &

1921-1 satisfy this requirement?

Concur; There was an overlap in definitions of "Manufacturing Labor" and "Integration, Assembly, Test and Checkout". Section L-2.2, Vol. I

(e) and the L-1 Cost Template have been updated to include clarifying language and are included in RFP Amendment 0002.

188 Attachment 4 Initial Spares 15,18 Server Hard Drives (Line 15), Air Filter Transit Case (Line 18) are both EOL parts.

Can the government provide guidance on replacement parts?

See response to Q#53.

The part number identified (342-2100) for the Server Hard Drive was an item in the draft TDP previously provided. The current Attachment

(2)-TDP posted with the solicitation no longer contains this part number.

CF131232 (Drawing Number: 13007A0217) is listed as an alternate part number for the Gore filter in the current Attachment (2)-TDP.

189 Attachment 4 Initial Spares 19 Chairs (SL-1204-GREEN) on Line 19 do not match the current TDP. Please provide guidance if this part should be acquired or updated to match the current TDP.

See response to Q#55.

SL-1204-GREEN was an item in the draft TDP previously provided.

The proper part number for the Chair is listed in the Attachment (2)-

TDP provided with the solicitation.

Attachment (4)-Initial Issue Spares List has been updated and was included in RFP Amendment 0001.

190 Attachment 4A Retrofit Spares 3, 4

Non-TACSIT (Dell-E653) and TACSIT (Dell-M6800) are both EOL parts and not in line with what is in the current TDP. Can the government provide guidance for what laptops should be procured for the Retrofit Spares?

The Attachment (4A)-Retrofit Spares List has been updated to match the RFP Attachment (2)-TDP for the Non-TACSIT Laptop (Dell-

M7510) and TACSIT Laptop (Dell-M7710) and was included in RFP

Amendment 0001.

See response to Q#159.

Attachment (4A)-Initial Spares List has been updated to include drawing numbers and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

As noted in the TDP pertinent drawings:

1) A0410 part number is Dell 7510

2) A0411 part number is Dell 7710

3) A0412 part number is Panasonic CF-3118488KM

4) A0071 part number is Dell R630

Attachment 4B Wholesale Stock Spares /

Attachment 4 Initial Spares

CONVERTER, SIGNAL part number 180050 does not exist according to the vendor, they claim it should be part number 248000. The drawing A0041 is reference and it does provide the part number as 248000. Can the government provide clarification on the East Coast Datacom part number expected in the initial spares and wholesale stock spares?

The Attachment (4B)-Wholesale Stock Spares List has been updated to match the current Attachment (2)-TDP, which calls out part number

248000 for Find Number: 1 in drawing 13007A0041 and was included in RFP Amendment 0001.

192 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

Within the cost template, the government requests detail into indirect labor by CLIN.

Indirect labor for our company is covered within our burden structure, not independently estimated. In addition, Quality Control & Manufacturing Ops are estimated within the Direct Labor Categories in the section above. Will the government accept cost formats which align with our existing accounting structure and estimating procedures, or must there be strict adherence to the cost formats?

See response to Q#73.

Direct Labor: Labor specifically identified with a particular final cost objective. Manufacturing direct labor includes fabrication, assembly, inspection, and test for constructing the end product. Engineering direct labor consists of engineering labors such as reliability, Quality

Assurance (QA), test, design, etc., that are readily identified with the end product.

Indirect Labor: Indirect labor is the cost of any labor that supports the production process, but which is not directly involved with the end product.

See response to Q#92.

Cost elements identified in Column A are provided as representative cost elements, but can be tailored as necessary at the sub-element level. Offerors shall provide a cost element breakdown by CLIN, and may provide in accordance with the offerors approved estimating, accounting system and CAS 401.

193 CDRLs CDRLs A015 and A024

Please clarify the relationship between CDRLs A015 & A024, and PRR. With the removal of SOW Section 3.4.3.3 from Software Sustainment CLINs, it is unclear why there is a requirement for these Software CDRLs prior to Production Readiness

Review.

Correct; CDRLs A015 and A024 are not part of the PRR; however, the

PRR is the milestone that the Government has tied the delivery of these (2) CDRLs.

194 Q/A Response on Microsoft Licenses

In accordance with the ordering guide and appendices for Microsoft enterprise agreement starting 1 June 2015, the offeror could procure enterprise licenses on the governments behalf if a FAR 51 form is completed and provided to the offeror. Will the government be able to provide this FAR 51 form after contract award to the winning bidder, to utilize enterprise pricing as required by Microsoft?

Yes; The Government may use of the methods in FAR Part 51 and

DFARS Part 251 and take action post award as necessary.

195 SOW 3.4.4.26

G/ATOR Testing "The events will be performed at Wallops Island, MCTSSA (Camp

Pendleton, CA), MACS-2 (Cherry Point, NC), and MACS-1 (Yuma, AZ)." Do these test events occur all four sites each year? Or one site per year over the fours years?

See response to Q#127.

For all events except the G/ATOR IOT&E the contractor is required to support on-site support for the initial (2) weeks of each event. The

Contractor will provide on-site support for the (8) weeks of G/ATOR

IOT&E.

196 SOW 3.4.4.23

"The Contractor shall integrate the CAC2S Software with the Government provided

CTN/SDP-S software. The target Software Maintenance Releases shall be agreed

Post Contract Award and coordinated with the CAC2S Software Manager." This is listed under the CLIN for each year. Is this a one time event? Once per year? Or more often?

See response to Q#133.

For purpose of proposing the requirement only, the Government anticipates there will be (3) Cyber and (1) tactical software/Cyber release for CTN/SDP-S updates per year. SOW Section 3.4.4.23 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

197 SOW 3.4.4.24

"The Contractor shall integrate the CAC2S Increment I Software with the Government provided updated Voice Communication System Software (VCSS) software. The target Software Maintenance Releases shall be agreed Post Contract Award and coordinated with the CAC2S Software Manager." This is listed under the CLIN for each year. Is this a one time event? Once per year? Or more often?

See response to Q#134.

VCSS updates are estimated to be provided quarterly.

198 SOW 3.4.4.21

"The Contractor shall conduct quarterly source code reviews..." Baseline is only released once every 6 months, the quarterly release is just an IA release, does it still need a source code review if there isn't new code?

Government Code Review Audit shall be conducted quarterly as defined in SOW Section 3.4.4.21.

199 CDSR CDRLs B007, B008 and B009 Do CDRLs B007, B008, & B009 need to be delivered at the completion of Lot 4?

Yes; The offeror shall deliver CDRLs B007, B008, and B009 at the completion of Lot 4. The CSDR Plan submission dates will be updated during the Post Award Conference.

200 TDP A0403, A0404

Parts list shows -01, -02, -03 variants of A0403 and A0404 but do not provide drawing information for those sub parts. Are they identical to the one configuration detailed with just different markings?

For drawings A0403 and A0404, the -01, -02, and -03 are parts of the assembly. The -01 is "Canvas" (Find Number: 001), -02 is "Loop

Strap" (Find Number: 002), and -03 is "Hook Tab" (Find Number:

003). The material used for each of these parts is captured in drawing notes 1, 4, and 3, respectively. The Attachment (2)-TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

201 TDP Will the offeror be given access to all of the TDP CAD files at contract award? Yes; TDP CAD files will be provided at contract award.

202 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

The government is requesting a description of each labor category in the bottom of the cost formats for every CLIN. Can we submit a master document describing each labor category, rather than appending the same information to each cost format tab?

Yes; The offeror may submit a master document describing each labor category and reference that document in the labor category section on each CLIN tab.

203 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

Unit Cost Calculation tab: Will the government clearly define what data they would like in each category? It is unclear what the government would like in fixed or variable labor, versus IAT&C.

See response to Q#187.

L-1 Cost Template have been updated to include clarifying language and are included in RFP Amendment 0002.

204 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

Unit Cost Calculation tab: We utilize additional indirect cost categories which are absent from the template. Are we permitted to modify the template in order to accurately capture our burden structure?

See response to Q#92.

Cost elements identified in Column A are provided as representative cost elements, but can be tailored as necessary at the sub-element level. Offerors shall provide a cost element breakdown by CLIN, and may provide in accordance with the offerors approved estimating, accounting system and CAS 401.

205 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

Unit Cost Calculation tab: Please confirm that while the cost of software licenses are captured in these CLINs, no cost associated with software maintenance should be included.

Yes; The cost of the software licenses are to be included in the unit cost calculation; however, the cost of software maintenance shall not be included, as these costs are to be included in CLINs 0009, 0108, 0206, and 0305.

206 Solicitation Document / Section L-1 Cost Template

Materials tab: Please update the template to include the items which the government would like costs provided for. It is unclear whether the government is requesting costs aggregated to the drawing, displayed for every subcomponent of every drawing, or provided at some other level of detail. Because all bidders are submitting costs for the exact same items, please clarify what the government is looking for in this template.

The offeror shall propose to all materials necessary to execute the

Government's requirement which is inclusive of any material references in Attachment (2)-TDP. Please note that material cost is exclusive of the GFP identified in Attachment 1.

207 SOW 3.4.3.3 Is there a 30-day prior notification to the government required for MAT?

No; The Government requires notification (20) calendar days prior to

MAT. SOW Section 3.4.3.3.2 has been updated to reflect this change and is included in RFP Amendment 0002.

208 SOW 3.4.1 and 3.4.4.3

What is the frequency and duration of participation in the AC2SN Configuration

Control Boards (CCBs)? Are these distinct and different from the CAC2S

Configuration Control Board (CCB)?

The AC2SN CCB meets quarterly for approximately (2) hours. These are separate from the CAC2S CCBs. SOW Section 3.4.1 has been updated to reflect this change and is included in RFP Amendment

0002.

209 SOW 3.3.1.11.1 Is the CWBS Dictionary to be delivered as part of Attachment 19?

No; The CWBS Dictionary is not part of Attachment (19)-Contractor’s

CWBS. CDRL B012 has been updated to reflect the CWBS Dictionary and was included in RFP Amendment 0001.

210 Section C 3.4.4 (pg 41)

Should the contractor use IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1 and IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.0 or

IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.2008 to define the software sustainment processes in the SSP?

SOW paragraph 3.4.4 states the SSP shall define the processes, the activities, and the tasks, techniques and tools in accordance with the framework defined in IEEE/EIA

Std. 12207.2008.

Section L Factor 2 indicates the SSP will be evaluated based on having the information defined IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1, section 5.2.1 (generic content) and the

Plans or Procedures in Table 1 of IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1 which is an inactive predecessor to 12207.2008.

Offerors shall use IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.2008, Section 7 to define the software sustainment processes. Section L Factor 2 (4) has been updated to reflect this change and is included in RFP Amendment

0002.

211 Attachment 24 Pg 3, Figure 1

Attachment (24) CAC2S Increment 1 software development strategy(v)4 shows a change of contract award until March of 2017 but retains all other delivery dates from the Draft RFP. As a result, the timeframe for implementation of engineering release

3.0R4E is significantly reduced and may now conflict with the transition of SIL materials from the Current Phase 2 Contractor to the Future Phase 2 Contractor.

Also, Attachment (24) now conflicts with SOW section 3.4.4.3; specifically the delivery date of the first discrete Phase 2 Software Maintenance Release. Additionally, Section F states that the Period of Performance for CLIN 0009 begins on 4/28/2016, which also conflicts with Attachment (24).

Recommend the Government synchronize the dates indicated in SOW section

3.4.4.3, Section F, and Attachment (24).

See response to Q#142.

Attachment (24)-CAC2S Software Development Strategy and the associated figure is provided as reference to understand the CAC2S software strategy. SOW paragraph 3.4.4.3, for delivery of the first SW release six (6) months after contract award applies. The timeline in

Attachment (24) is for planning purposes and will be baselined upon contract award.

212 Section M Factor 3.2.6 (pg 143)

In Section M, Factor 3.2.6 Factor 6 – Facilities (p.143), the following definition is provided:

“The term “major” as used herein to define a major subcontractor under this Factor 6 is defined as a subcontractor with a subcontract valued at twenty percent (20%) or more of the total proposed contract price, and cost including fee”.

Since no other definition is provided, it is requested that the USG please confirm that this is the definition that should apply to ALL uses of the term “Major Subcontractor” throughout the RFP.

"Major Subcontractor" is defined as a subcontractor with a subcontract valued at twenty million ($20,000,000) or more of the total proposed contract price. The definition of "Major Subcontractor" shall apply to ALL uses of the term, including the use in Section L. Section

L has been updated to reflect this change and is included in RFP

Amendment 0002.

213 Section L Vol III

The Section L instructions do not specifically state if subcontractor proposals are required to be submitted with the Offeror's submittal. Is it correct to assume that subcontractor proposals are not required to be submitted with the Offeror's submittal?

No, this assumption is incorrect. Subcontractor proposals are required to be submitted with the offeror's submittal in accordance with Section

L, Vol. III and FAR 15.404-3.

Section F

Section G Pg 60

Offeror understands that there may be elements of the incumbent performance for

Phase II LRU/EDM that potentially overlap with the successful offeror’s execution of

Phase II Full Deployment. Currently, the solicitation does not include FAR 52.246-14:

Excusable Delays. What steps has the USG incorporated to mitigate any interdependency or concurrency between phases, such that the successful offeror performance is not compromised by cost or schedule impacts resulting from events not under their control?

See response to Q#97.

FAR 52.