N00024-13-R-5100_Bidder's_Questions_Set_3.pdf

Question: Section 4.1.1 f) states "Define plans to support the timely submission of a completed integration design package for a shipbuilder or NSWC Dahlgren to use in the development of detail installation drawings."

It is requested that the government clarify that "Integration design packages" refer to Technical Data Packages (TDPs) and are not a separate product.

Answer: The Government confirms that “integration design packages” refer to TDPs and are not a separate product.

SI&T – Question 74 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L, Section 4.1.1 Ship Integration and Engineering Activities

Document Name:

Final RFP

Document Date:

09/05/13

Question: The DDG 112 Master Test Plan contains a link to the TRAIN website that provides a link to the associated Test Sequence Network (TSN). We were not provided permissions to gain access to the website for this link and such cannot view the TSN.

It is requested that the government provide access to or provide the appropriate link to enable access to the DDG 112 TSN.

Answer: The Government will post the DDG 112 Test Sequence Network (TSN) to Viewnet in the “Test Sequence Network” folder.

SI&T – Question 75

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Sample Problem #2 Waterfront Test Program Development

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In the Draft AEGIS SI&T Solicitation released on January 3, 2013 the LOE CLINs were Cost-Pus-Award-Fee (CPAF) type, the Completion CLINs were Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) type, and the Weapon System Assessments were Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP). Pursuant to the release of the Final AEGIS SI&T Solicitation on September 5, 2013 the LOE CLINs changed to a Cost-Reimbursement hybrid of Cost-Plus-Incentive Fee (CPIF) and Cost-Pus-Award-Fee (CPAF) types.

The offeror submitted a question on September 10, 2013 regarding this LOE CLIN type change and noted that numerous attachments, fee structures, and Section B CLIN provisions were not consistent with a Cost-Pus-Award-Fee (CPAF) effort.

Accordingly, if the final solicitation is accurate as written, the following graphic represents what the Offeror understands as the CLIN contract types that the RFP portrays:

CLIN Type Cost Incentive Performance Incentive

Completion (CPIF) 10% - Target 5% - Maximum (J-15 Performance Incentive Fee Plan) 0% - Min Fee TBD – Max Fee Cost Share % Under 50/50 Over 60/40

LOE (CPIF/CPAF) CPIF CPAF

5% - Target 5% - Maximum (Award Fee Plan RFP Sec. B) 0% - Min Fee 0% - Base Fee TBD - Max Fee Cost Share %:

Under 50/50 Over 60/40

It is requested that NAVSEA confirm that the Cost-Reimbursement CLIN type structures as profiled above are the correct structures that should be bid in our proposal.

Answer: The above representation of the solicitation fee structure contains errors in display of the share ratios for the Over Target Share Ratio of the Completion CLINs and for the Under Target Share Ratio of the LOE CLINs. Offerors are directed to the applicable incorporated version of FAR 51.216-10 for the specified share ratios. It should be noted that FAR 52.216-10 provides instructions regarding the CPIF Max Fee that is shown as “TBD” above. The remainder of the fee structure representations displayed above appears to be in accordance with the solicitation.

SI&T – Question 76

B

Page:

2-209

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B CLIN Contract Types

Document Name:

Final RFP