Laser_Eye_Protection_-_Questions_and_Responses_FBO_Set_1.pdf

Date Received Response/Comments /Question to Government from Industry Response from Government

1 13-Apr-2015 Will the Government consider a cost-type development contract for the

NRE phases (CLINS 1-4) instead of an FFP contract? We believe a cost-type contract would be mutually beneficial. There are significant risks in the scope of work which we believe will cause FFP costs to increase above those in a cost-type contract, and a cost-type contract will encourage additional collaboration during the NRE phase, ultimately leading to a better product for the Government.

The Government will review the contract strategy and any resulting changes will be reflected in the RFP. The Government anticipates releasing a Draft RFP for Industry review and comment.

2 13-Apr-2015 It appears from the CLIN structure that 80 (62+18) prototype units are desired, however, without a test plan, how is this number justified?

The Government is reviewing Prototype Test Unit, Rx Prototype Test Unit, Qualification

Test Unit, and Rx Qualification Test Unit requirements and will provide clarification in a draft updated Section B CLIN structure that will be posted in FedBizOpps.

3 13-Apr-2015 We suggest the Government use FOB Origin for Items 0101 through 0203 on schedule B.

The Government will consider using the Freight-On-Board Origin as an option for items

0101 through 0203. Any resulting changes will be reflected in the RFP.

4 13-Apr-2015 Can the Government provide details on what its budget is for this effort?

Does the Government have specific payment or funding milestones in mind, and if so, when do those occur and what is their value?

The Government will consider providing a funding profile in the RFP. The RFP will also address any performance based payment provisions.

5 13-Apr-2015 When does the Government anticipate issuing the final RFP? Knowing this timeline would greatly help with resource planning purposes.

The Government anticipates issuing a Draft RFP in September 2015. The Government anticipates issuing a Final RFP in 1st Qtr FY16. Please monitor FedBizOpps for updates.

6 13-Apr-2015 In section 3.2.1 on pages 3 and 4, a CIMS is described. Can the

Government provide some guidance on acceptable or preferred format, computer software, and frequency of submission?

The RFP will include a CDRL for the Contractor Integrated Master Schedule, which will address required format and frequency of submission.

7 13-Apr-2015 On page 5, a Government IMS is mentioned as an attachment, but was not provided. We encourage and request that the Government to provide an anticipated schedule of milestones, prototype spectacle deliveries, and

CDRLs as early as possible for review, comments, and questions.

The Government will consider providing the notional summary LEP Threat Spectacle schedule before the RFP is released Please monitor FedBizOpps for updates.

8 13-Apr-2015 Prototype spectacles are to be provided before TIM#1 (logically, also before a TIM#2) and qualification spectacles after CDR. For the quantities of prototype (3.4.3) and qualification (3.4.4) spectacles required, the SOW points to the CLIN, where a total quantity of 80 is described. How are these

80 spectacles divided between TIM#1, (TIM#2) and qualification articles?

The language in the SOW appears to leave the number of spectacles variable, or “as required”, which is language one would expect in a cost-type SOW.

See response to Question #2.

9 13-Apr-2015 Is it expected that the option CLINS be bid FFP at the same time as the

NRE? We suggest having these be bid at a time when the NRE phase is complete in order to get the best estimates of actual cost and best price for the Government. We suggest the Government request a ROM estimate in this RFP until such time as the design is finalized.

It is anticipated that Offerors will bid prices for the NRE and Option CLINs simultaneously.

The RFP will address pricing mechanism for option CLINs.

10 13-Apr-2015 We suggest “conclusion of testing and demonstration of compliance with specifications” be added to the IPRR entrance criteria on page 8 to ensure the design, fabrication, and test processes are fixed.

The Government will consider this recommendation.

11 13-Apr-2015 To facilitate test and evaluation, what GFE/GFM will be made available?

For example, will the Government supply helmets and other equipment to ensure proper fitting?

The Government will make Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) available to facilitate testing. Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government Furnished Material (GFM) will be described in the RFP.

12 13-Apr-2015 Would the Government accept a solution involving multiple size spectacles

(e.g. small, medium, large) to be compliant in accommodating the anthropometric data? (as opposed to a “one size fits all” design)

The Government is still considering spectacles design approach.

13 13-Apr-2015 In requirement 3.3.3., requirement 3.4 is specifically EXEMPTED: “the

LEP spectacle, with prescription. Shall meet all requirements EXCEPT…

3.4, 3.5.1.2, 3.6, and 3.7”. 3.4 is the laser protection, however, which means the spectacles do not provide any laser protection. Can the Government clarify what is meant by this exemption?

The Government has clarified this requirement in the LEP Specification. Laser protection is contained in the Spectacles themselves, not the Rx component. Laser protection will be tested without Rx component only. No laser protection testing with Rx component will be required.

14 13-Apr-2015 In requirement 3.5.2., what objective metric(s) will be used to determine if the spectacle is compatible with a display, lighting source, etc.? Will spectral data be provided so we may ensure compatibility?

The Government intends to utilize subject testing to ensure visual compatibility. The

Government does not intend to provide spectral data.

15 13-Apr-2015 The requirement for “no evidence of visible space between the frame and lens” in section 3.9.5 may have a significant negative yield and therefore cost impact. Allowing minor gaps between frame and lens so long as the spectacle meets all performance specs is suggested.

The Government will not allow minor gaps between frame and lens.

16 13-Apr-2015 As the RX component is anticipated to be an attachment to the LEP, does the Government have a notional concept of how the prescription component would attach to the spectacle?

The Government does not have a notional concept of how the prescription component would attach to the spectacle. The prescription component performance is described in Para 3.3.3 of the LEP Specification.

17 13-Apr-2015 In requirement 3.4 it states that the LEP spectacle shall provide protection at the required optical densities and wavelengths specified in Appendix C.

Can the Government please provide classified requirements so we can make a better evaluation of the draft specification? If this cannot be done before draft RFP is issued, can the classified requirements be part of the draft RFP and instructions for receiving the classified requirements be made known?

The classified Appendix C will not be released at this time. The RFP will provide instructions for requesting the classified Appendix.

18 14-Apr-2015 The notice indicates an Industry Day in May 2015. Is there a specific date set for this event or is yet to be scheduled?

The LEP Threat Spectacles Industry Day will be conducted on 13 May 2015.

Announcement was posted to FedBizOpps on 24 April 2015.

19 6-Apr-2015 Regarding the requirements contained in the classified Appendix C for

Solicitation Number: N00019-15-P1-PMA202-0006. Can you comment on whether this is a DOD collateral secret document?

The Government is unable to comment.

20 13-Apr-2015 Will your office be accepting multiple bids from the same company? The RFP will address if Alternate Proposals will be accepted.

21 6-Apr-2015 Request hard copy media (no disk) for Appendix C under solicitation

N00019-15-P1-PMA202-0006.

See response to Question #20.

22 14-Apr-2015 We are examining your Solicitation Number: N00019-15-P1-PMA202-

0006, and are trying to evaluate the request for industry feedback to the draft SOW, Spec, and CLIN. The spec instructs us to contact the

Contracting Officer in writing for "Appendix C" , but contains no more details. We were wondering if you could inform us as to the proper procedure for requesting this information.

See response to Question #20.

23 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW refers to the Government Integrated Master Schedule and identifies it as an attachment to the draft SOW. Can the Government IMS be provided?

Specific: The draft SOW identifies the Post Award Meeting NLT 30 working days after Award. Since the contractor will participate and support the Government System Requirements Review (SRR) II at Patuxent River

NAS, insight into the timing after contract award and after the Post Award

Meeting will be helpful to understand the commitments and schedule constraints for early contract execution.

See response to Question #7.

24 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW identifies that PMR briefs are due NLT 2 weeks prior to the

PMR event. Recommend 1 week.

Specific: Government Meetings, PMRs and Technical Reviews have predecessor and entry criteria activities occurring right up to the event.

Review information is being gathered almost up to the event. Requiring presentation material two (2) weeks prior results in publishing charts without the latest information. Recommend one (1) week delivery requirement to allow ample time for activity completion and reporting before the reviews.

The Government will consider your recommendation.

25 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW, para 3.3.4 identifies the Prototype Evaluation TIM #1 to review aircrew feedback on the assessment of the initial design. SOW para

3.4.3 identifies that LEP Prototype Units, identified in Section B, will be delivered prior to the Prototype Evaluation TIM #1 and used for

Government Testing. Are these Prototype Units the same as identified for

CLINs 0002 and 0003?

Specific: Seeking confirmation that the CLIN 0002 and 0003 Prototype

Units are to be delivered for Government Evaluation which will support the

Prototype Evaluation TIM #1 scheduled between PDR and CDR which will provide design inputs.

See response to Question #2.

26 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW, para 3.3.7 Test Readiness Review (TRR) identifies this event is held 30 days prior to the start of on-aircraft Government testing and it identifies an Entry Criterion of having the Qualification Test Report available. Please clarify if it is the Government intent to have the contractor conduct all off-aircraft performance verifications and environmental qualification tests to support safety of flight certifications prior to the Test

Readiness Review.

Specific: Seeking confirmation that apart from the 30 day contractor notification to the Government prior to starting Qualification Tests, SOW para 3.4.2.1, no formal review (e.g., QTRR) is required after CDR and prior to the start of formal qualification testing.

The Contractor shall perform all off aircraft testing prior to TRR. No formal review (SETR) is required to begin this testing.

27 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW, para 3.4.4, Qualification Test Units, identifies that the contractor is to provide test articles in the Product Baseline configuration approved at the conclusion of CDR using production tooling in quantities outlined in Section B of the contract. If CLINs 0002 and 0003 are the prototype test units to support the Prototype Evaluation, should there be separate CLINs for the Qualification Test Unit deliverables referred to in para 3.4.4?

Specific: It appears that CLINs for the Qualification Test Unit deliverables are missing from the Section B CLIN Structure.

See response to Question #2.

28 15-Apr-2015 The draft SOW, para 3.4.1, Prototype Evaluation identifies Government testing of the post-PDR Prototypes to provide design inputs at the Prototype

Evaluation TIM #1 held between PDR and CDR. Draft SOW para 3.4.2, Qualification Test Plan and Test Procedures identifies Government ground and flight testing as part of the Qualification Test effort to be completed prior to the SVR event. Since these Government Test Activities occur within the Contractor Integrated Master Schedule (CIMS), can the

Government provide insight into the schedule duration for these activities and the scope of contractor support required to support these activities?

Specific: Any insight into the Government’s program schedule will be helpful. It will be important to understand the duration of Government test activities and the overall effect on the contractor’s integrated master schedule. In addition, insight contractor support required for Government test activities will be necessary to estimate program resource needs.

See response to Question #7.

29 15-Apr-2015 The recent Laser Eye Protection Threat Spectacles Federal Business

Opportunities solicitation identified draft RFP release in 3rd Qtr FY15 with anticipated contract award a year later in 3rd Qtr FY16. When does the

Government anticipate a formal RFP release and how long will potential offerors have to respond with proposals? Will development samples be required with the proposals?

Specific: Insight into the Government acquisition schedule will assist potential contractors perform resource planning.

See response to Question #5.

30 15-Apr-2015 The FedBizOps solicitation identifies an Industry Day planned in May

2015. Recommend scheduling a period of time for one-on-one sessions to enable potential bidders to seek clarification on requirements and technical approaches that may involve proprietary information.

Specific: One-on-one sessions would provide insight to the Government on requirements issues and provide potential bidders insight into Government priorities without disclosing proprietary information in a general forum.

The LEP Threat Spectacles Industry Day Announcement posted to FedBizOpps on 24 April

2015 includes provisions for one-on-one sessions.

31 15-Apr-2015 The Draft LEP Spec identifies a classified appendix that can be requested.

When will the classified appendix be available?

Specific: The classified appendix is necessary for complete and thorough understanding of the draft LEP Specification document. A technical solution cannot be developed without this information.

See response to Question #20.

32 15-Apr-2015 What program element number is the budget item justification and funding contained in for this program?

The Government does not intend to provide the program element number. See response to

Question #4.

33 15-Apr-2015 Will NAVAIR consider awarding a program under a cost reimbursable type contract?

See response to Question #1.

34 15-Apr-2015 Is there a Master Program Schedule available for Review? See response to Question #7.

35 15-Apr-2015 When does the Navy expect to release a formal Request for Proposal? See response to Question #5.

36 15-Apr-2015 At the time of the issuance of the final RFP, how much calendar time will be granted for proposal preparation and submission?

The Government is considering 60 calendar days for proposal preparation. The RFP will address proposal due date.

37 15-Apr-2015 Will any hardware, or proof-of-concept/capability samples be required for the Proposal Submission?

The Government is considering requirements for hardware/proof-of-concept samples.

Requirements for samples will be outlined in the RFP, Section L Proposal Instructions.

38 15-Apr-2015 Can any data in regard to the laser wavelengths be released that would not be considered "classified"?

The Government does not plan to provide data in regard to laser wavelengths at this time.

Wavelength data will be provided in the RFP.

39 15-Apr-2015 Are there any open documents/specifications on laser wavelengths that can be referenced?

See response to Question #48.

40 15-Apr-2015 Any guidance on Evaluation Criteria? Price? Technical Compliance? Past

Performance? Manufacturing/Surge capability?

Evaluation criteria will be included in the RFP and are not available at this time.