N00024-13-R-5100_Bidders'_Questions_Set__1.pdf

SI&T - Question 02 RFP Section:

Section B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Supplies Services and Prices

Document Name:

Final RFP

Document Date:

09/05/2013

Question: Section B lists all cost type CLINs regardless of whether they are completion based or government directed as Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) in nature. Numerous other attachments and other portions of Section B discuss provisions and fee structure for Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) arrangements.

Is it NAVSEA’s intention to remove all references to Award Fee via a future RFP modification?

Answer: No, the Government will not remove references to award fee. The RFP correctly identifies the applicable contract type in Section B. It should be noted that Section B identifies that numerous line items have both incentive fee (share line) and performance incentive or award fee components. In cases where this exists, the line item description in Section B references the applicable Section B Note to provide the necessary information to address the multiple fee components.

SI&T - Question 03

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment 16 Baseline 9D ATT Responsible Test List

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Test Procedure 3A456C205 – MULTIMISSION SIGNAL PROCESSOR ILO has not been provided on ViewNet.

It is requested that NAVSEA provide this test procedure at your earliest convenience.

Answer: The Government has provided Test Procedure 3A456F205 – Baseline 9C Test Procedure in lieu of Test Procedure 3A456C205, which is not available. Offerors should reference Test Procedure 3A456F205 for use in proposal development.

SI&T - Question 04

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment 34 Key Personnel

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The Key Personnel listed in Attachment J-34 are not included in Attachment J-23 Staffing Plan Definition, with the exception of Program Manager and Logistics Representative. It appears as though J-34 Key Personnel should be a subset of the entire Attachment J-23.

It is requested that the government update Attachment J-23 to include all Key Personnel positions shown in J-34.

Answer: Attachment J-34 is a subset of Attachment J-23; however the two attachments provide different levels of detail. The Government provided Attachment J-34 Key Personnel positions to provide specific detail as to the key skillset required by individual. These skillsets fit into the broader categories identified in the Attachment J-23 Staffing Plan Definitions. For example, a Spy Engineer is a key position that has specialized Spy experience, but fits into the overall Engineer Staffing Plan Definition. When providing staffing, the Offeror can provide their Company Labor category, Key Personnel Labor Category, and corresponding Labor Category.

The Government does not contemplate a revision to Attachment J-23.

SI&T - Question 05

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment J-34 Key Personnel

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: This section includes a table defining the page limit of Volume II (Sample Problems).

Aside from the TDP (which has an unlimited page count), each of the four (4) sample problems within Volume II is limited to twenty-five (25) pages. This is in conflict with Section L 4.0 which states “Allocation of pages across particular Tabs within a Volume is left to the Offeror’s discretion, provided the overall page count of the volume is not exceeded”. We recognize the value of a page limit to the Source Selection process and do not wish to deliver an unnecessarily large response to this RFP.

We respectfully request that NAVSEA provide a cumulative limit of one hundred (100) pages in total for Volume II (with the TDP continuing to be unlimited) and allow the Offerors to allocate the page count across the Sample Problems as necessary in accordance with Section L,

4.0 Solicitation Response Requirements, page 341 of the RFP.

Answer: The Government does not agree that the two referenced sections of Section L are in conflict. The question omits the sentence immediately preceding the one cited from Section 4.0 and fails to recognize that the instructions provide the ability for an Offeror to allocate the elements of its response to each sample problem within that 25 page count limit.

SI&T - Question 06

Section L

Page:

345-346

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section 4.3 Volume III – Management Approach

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Volume III, Section 4.3 requires a Teaming Plan (4.3.3.b), Subcontracting Plan (4.3.3.d), and Risk Management Plan (4.3.2.2.e). The page limit (50 pages) for the Management Volume presents a challenge due to the requirement to submit these plans, other additional information, and other plans as part of the Management Volume.

It is requested that these three plans be included in the Supplemental Volume V versus Volume

III.

Answer: The Government does not concur with the requested revision and the page limit remains unchanged.

SI&T - Question 08

Section L

Page:

344-345

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

4.2 Volume II – Sample Problems

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The Sample Problems require the development of deliverables, whose format will be difficult to conform to the requirements defined in Section L 3.1. For example, Sample Problem 1 requires the submittal of a Technical Data Package, Sample Problem 2 requires the submittal of a Test Sequence Network which, according to S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP, is a PERT style network diagram and Sample Problem 4 requires the development of a Link-22 Sea Trials Agenda and Test Plans.

In order for the Offerors to submit these deliverables in the most effective way possible, it is requested that the RFP be amended so that these artifacts are submitted as part of the Supplemental Information Volume V with unlimited page count.

Volume II would still adhere to a page limit and provide descriptions of the Offeror’s approach to the Sample Problem and any other levied requirements that are not explicitly part of the Sample Problem. Volume II would reference the appropriate section of the Supplemental Information Volume V as necessary.

Answer: The Government will modify the requirement specifically for the TSN associated with Sample Problem 2 to allow for submission in a more appropriate format. Section L, paragraph

3.1 instructions will be changed from:

“Fold out pages may be used for diagrams, charts or graphic material only and may not exceed 11 inches by 17 inches. Fold out pages will be counted as two pages.”

To: “Fold out pages may be used for diagrams, charts or graphic material only and may not exceed 11 inches by 17 inches, except for Sample Problem 2. For Sample Problem 2, offerors may submit the TSN on ANSI E sized paper. Fold out pages, including ANSI E pages for Sample Problem 2, will be counted as two pages.”

The Government will not modify the requirements for Sample Problem 4.

SI&T - Question 09

Government Response C101

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Per NAVSEA’s response regarding the redundancy of Sections 4.2.1.e (now 4.1.1.d) and 4.2.3.d (now 4.1.3.d), “The Government agrees that there is some redundancy in these two paragraphs. The Government will clarify the requirement in the Final RFP”. This clarification was not provided in the Final RFP.

It is requested that NAVSEA provide a clarification to avoid repetition in the response due to the page limitation in Volume I.

Answer: The Government does not agree that redundancy still exists as referenced above. The two referenced Section L paragraphs address different requirements.

SI&T - Question 10

Section L

Page:

344-345

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

4.2 Volume II – Sample Problems

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Sample Problem 4 states “Offeror shall develop a sea trials agenda and the test plans necessary to test the functionality of Link 22 accomplished under Section C 3.10.4”. Per government response C091, the government instructed the Offerors “The Test procedures are required to be updated as part of this sample problem.”

Since Sample Problem 4 as written does not mention the update of test procedures, we request that NAVSEA confirm that the update of test procedures is not required as part of this sample problem and that only the agenda and plans need to be submitted.

Also, if test procedures are required, it is requested that NAVSEA modify the RFP to indicate this added scope and provide the Offerors with the test procedures that need to be modified.

Answer: Offerors are directed the answer for C114 posted to FBO on 09/11/2013. To clarify, a Link-22 Test Procedure does not exist. Offerors should use the Link-16 Test Procedure as a starting point to develop a Test Procedure for Link-22.

SI&T - Question 11

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment 17 Baseline 9A and 9C AMT Responsible Test List

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The following Test Procedures are missing from ViewNet: 3C320F204 - MCE

SABT INSTALL VERIFICATION, 5A411F224 - APS & HWS FUNCTIONAL TEST,

5A411F233 – APS & EW FUNCTIONAL TEST and 7A409F202 – AWS OPDEMO.

It is requested that NAVSEA provide these three (3) test procedures at your earliest convenience.

Answer: The four (4) test procedures have been posted to Viewnet.

SI&T - Question 12

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment J-26 Total Ship Test Program Manual

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Attachment J-26 contains “S9095-AD-TRQ-010/TSTP – The Total Ship Test Program Manual” dated 03 March 1995. On 22 Aug 2013, a more recent version of the S9095 Total Ship Test Program Manual (30 Jun 2011) was provided on ViewNet. This newer version indicates that it supercedes the 1995 version.

It is requested that NAVSEA replace the 1995 version of Attachment J-26 with the 30 June 2011 version on ViewNet.

Answer: Offerors are directed to use the Attachment J-26, “S9095-AD-TRQ-010/TSTP – The Total Ship Test Program Manual” dated 03 March 1995. The June 2011 version will be removed from Viewnet.

SI&T - Question 13

Section C

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

2.2 Reference Documents

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The following documents are referenced in Section C of the RFP but have not been provided on ViewNet nor are they available on the ASSIST database.

a. NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC

b. NAVSEA T9095-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS

c. NAVSEA STD 407-5291780

It is requested that NAVSEA provide the Offerors the missing reference documents at your earliest convenience.

Answer:

a. NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC is provided for CGs and DDG 51 class ships by chapter on Viewnet in the Ship Specifications folder.

b. NAVSEA T9095-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS is posted with the (NAVSEA S9AA0-AB-GOS- 010/GSO) in the Ship Specifications folder. The Aegis Supplement is embedded within the GenSpec document.

c. NAVSEA STD 407-5291780 (NAVSEA EMC instruction) will be provided.

SI&T - Question 14

Section C

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

3.2 New Construction Combat System Waterfront

Integration and Test

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In the list of references on page 216, there is a reference for “59095-AD-TRQ-

010/TSTP”.

Is the “5” noted above a typographical error? If so, it is requested that NAVSEA clarify which document it is referring to at your earliest convenience.

Answer: Yes. It should reference S9095-AD-TRQ- 010/TSTP.

SI&T - Question 15

Section C

Page:

226-228

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

3.9 AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) Element

Assessments

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section C3.9 describes the CLIN 0014 tasking for AEGIS Weapon System Element Assessments which is a Firm Fixed Price CLIN. Page 226 states “The list of ICMP tasks for the AWS is included in Section J- Attachment 3” and “…The deliverables required include daily assessment reports and a completion report on each of the AEGIS Weapon System Components, examples of which are provided in Section J – Attachments 6 and 7”.

Attachment J-3 lists 128 Maintenance Requirement Cards (MRCs). There are only 46 MRCs provided on ViewNet. Of those 46 MRCs, only 30 of them are listed on Attachment J-3.

Please provide the full set of MRCs listed on Attachment J-3 in order for the Offeror’s to accurately bid this Firm Fixed Price CLIN. It is requested that NAVSEA clarify the rationale for the additional MRCs provided that are not part of the Attachment 3 list at your earliest convenience.

Answer: The Government will revise Attachment J-3 in a forthcoming amendment. All 128 MRCs will be posted on Viewnet.

SI&T - Question 16

Section L

Page:

342-343

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

4.1.2, b) Waterfront Integration and Test

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA Tracking Number response C105 dated 22 August 2013 States that “The mapping to specific requirements refers to the results being mapped to the test “elements” derived during test procedure development.

A description and/or list of the test “elements” has not been made available on ViewNet.

Please confirm that the government will provide the requisite element information for the test procedures provided on Viewnet and also provide the current mapping of test results to test “elements” for those procedures.

Answer: Offerors are directed to see the answer for C115 posted to FBO on 09/11/2013.

SI&T - Question 17

Section L

Page:

344-345

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

4.2, VOL II Sample Problem 2, Waterfront Test Program

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: We request clarification of the Test Sequence Networks (TSN) requirements. Based on the sample TSNs available on ViewNet, test durations are included for individual tests.

However, per the General Ship Overhaul Instruction and NAVSEA S9095 AD-TRQ 010/TSTP, test durations and timelines are not required for the TSN. The GSO Instruction states, "TSNs will not show absolute dates or test time requirements only test relationships” and S9095 states, “TSNs do not show dates or schedule, only test relationships.”

If test time requirements (as included in the provided sample TSNs) are required for TSN submission, please confirm that the government will provide the balance of the test duration information for the test procedures identified in the following paragraphs.

The New Construction test procedures for which we request test durations are:

• 3A411C214 Common Display System ILO

• 3A491C204 Training Systems ILO & FT

• 3A439C201 DIVDS ILO & FT

• 4A411C216 CPS & MCE ILO & Diagnostic Test

• 4A482C206 WDRS ILO & FT

• 5A409C214 ACTS BMD FT

• 5A409C216 BMD & AWS EGMT FT

• 5A409C217.1 BMD & CS FT (INPT)

• 5A411C239 Ballistic Missile Defense FT •5A482C207 Kill Assessment System FT

• 5A409C206.1 Combat System Functional Test

• 5A409C208 Internal Voice Comms System FT

• 6A409C207 Combat Systems & CEC FT

• 7A409C206 CEC At-Sea Operational Verification Test

The Aegis Modernization test procedures for which we request test durations are:

• 3A456F201 MFR Transmitter Group ILO

• 3A456F203 MFR Transmitter FT

• 3A456F205 Multi-Mission Signal Processor ILO

• 3A456F206 Multi-Mission Signal Processor FT

• 4A482F206 WDRC ILO & FT

• 5A409F214 ACTS BMD FT

• 5A409F216 BMD & AWS EGMT FT

• 5A409F217.1 BMD & CS FT (INPT)

• 5A409F217.2 BMD & CS FT (At Sea)

• 5A411F239 Ballistic Missile Defense FT

• 5A482F207 Kill Assessment System FT

• 5A411F231 APS & Surface Search Radar FT

Answer: Offerors are directed to see the answer to C116 answer posted to FBO on 09/11/2013.

SI&T - Question 18

Section J

Page:

314-315

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment 21, Sample Problem #1 Full Content Technical Data Package, Part A

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA Tracking Number C082 response dated 22 August 2013 states “There is NOT a requirement to submit Sample Problem 1 Part A in CADD/CATIA. Response C028 stated, “[t]he Government will not provide the CADD/CATIA source files. However, the Government will provide and list under J-Attachment 19 cable block diagrams, cable data lists, and legacy drawings in support of SI&T contract execution.”

Please verify that redline PDF's of the Technical Data Package (TDP) artifacts are an acceptable submittal format for Sample Problem #1.

Answer: Offerors are directed to see the answer to C119 posted to FBO on 09/11/2013.

Question: DD Form 1423 – CDRLs and the associated attachments identified as Exhibit A were not delivered as part of the final RFP.

When will Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423 and the associated attachments be posted?

Answer: Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423 was posted to FBO on 9/13/13.

SI&T – Question 21 RFP Section: J Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Exhibit A: DD Form 1423 – CDRLs

Document Name:

Final RFP

09/05/13

Question: Section L-3, 4.1 Volume I – Technical Approach, Sections 4.1.1 – 4.1.4 contain 4 major paragraphs and 25 subparagraphs.

RFP Section L states that Volume I – Technical Approach will be a total of 50 pages. RFP Section M states that the Technical Approach Volume is significantly more important than the Sample Problems, which is significantly more important than the Management Approach Volume. The 50 page limit for the Technical Approach Volume restricts the amount of detail required to fully describe a technical approach that outlines the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of these efforts and the processes associated with executing the listed tasks.

Will the Government amend the RFP to increase the Volume I – Technical Approach page limit to 100 pages so that the response can contain a detailed and precise description of all requirements?

Answer: The Government will revise the page limit for Volume I – Technical Approach to 100 pages. This change will be incorporated in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 22 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 3.1: Solicitation Response Requirements

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The TDP being developed in response to Volume II – Sample Problem 1, Part A has been identified as page count unlimited.

In order to facilitate the Government’s determination of an Offeror’s page count in Volume II – Sample Problem 1, will the Government consider moving the page unlimited TDP to Volume V

– Supplemental Information?

Answer: No. Offerors are responsible for adequately marking the Sample Problem 1, Part A.

SI&T – Question 23 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 4.2 Volume II: Sample Problem 1, Part A

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Development of a TSN is required as part of the 25 page response to Sample Problem

2. A typical TSN is a large document not effectively formatted to comply with the Section L instructions.

(1) For ease of review, would the Government allow the TSN artifact to be provided in Offeror format, on paper larger than 11 x 17 inch?

(2) Would the Government allow the Offeror to deliver the TSN in the page unlimited Volume V – Supplemental Information?

Answer: In response to (1), offerors are directed to the answer to Question 08. In response to (2), the Government will not make the requested change.

SI&T – Question 24 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 4.2 Volume II: Sample Problem 2

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: On page 359 in Section L, the RFP provides a table that equals $31.5M for CLIN 0016.

Section L/Note D Table CLIN 16 Total is $31.5M:

0016AA $ 1.0

1016BA $ 2.4

2016CA $ 2.9

3016DA $ 3.3

4016EA $ 4.0

5016FA $ 4.7

6016GA $ 4.6

7016HA $ 3.6

8016JA $ 3.0

9016KA $ 2.0

TOTAL $ 31.5

However, in Section M on page 374 the RFP states that CLIN 0016 has a ceiling of $31,400,000.

Will the Government please provide clarification on the correct total for CLIN 0016?

Answer: The correct amount is $31, 500, 00 and the references to $31, 400, 00 will be corrected in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 25

L & M

359 (Sec. L) 375 (Sec. M) 198 (Sec. B)

Section L, Chapter 1.0, Section 1.1: Cost Summary Requirements for CLINs 0016-0026

Section M, 5.2.1e: TEP

Section B: Note D

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section L, 4.3.1e states:

“Traceability: The Management Plan and IMS must clearly reflect a direct and traceable correlation with the Statement of Work (SOW), Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), and the Cost Volume.”

Section L, 3.2 states “cross referencing between factors within Volumes I-V is permitted…”. It does not state that references to Volume VI – Cost is permitted in Volumes I-V.

(1) Does the Government intend for Offerors to reference Cost Volume sections within Volume

III – Management Approach, Subfactor 1, Traceability Section?

(2) If so, how will the Cost Volume references be evaluated under the management factor?

Answer: In response to question (1) above, Offerors may not include any cost information within Volumes I-V. Offerors are responsible for ensuring consistency across all volumes. There is no page limit for Volume VI and Volume VI must stand alone. In response to question (2) above, cost will not be evaluated under the management factor. Again, Offerors are responsible demonstrating consistency and understanding of the requirements.

SI&T – Question 27 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 4.3.1.e

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The government has provided AN/SLQ-32(V6) drawing list. All of the documentation in the list has been provided with the exception of DWG -7119552 (NTDS TO SINGLE MODE

FIBER CONVERTER).

It is requested that the government provide this drawing to the Offerors.

Answer: The drawing has been posted in the AN/SLQ-32 folder on Viewnet.

SI&T – Question 30 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Sample Problem #1 (Full Content Technical Data Package

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The new data provided in ViewNet (per NAVSEA Question Response C085) includes AN/SLQ-32 (V) 6 (NAVSEA Drawing 807-7119499) Cable Data Running Sheets. In order to comply with the Attachment J-8 (TDP Content) requirements, and the government’s answer to C084, Offerors must have access to AN/SLQ-32 (V) 2 Cable Data Running Sheets and the AN/SLQ-32(V)2 ICD.

It is requested that the government provide the AN/SLQ-32 (V) 2 Cable Data Running Sheets and the AN/SLQ-32(V) 2 ICD in order for the Offerors to adequately perform the required gap analysis.

Answer: The AN/SLQ-32 (V) 2 Cable Data Running Sheets and the AN/SLQ-32(V)2 ICD will be posted on Viewnet.

SI&T – Question 31 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Sample Problem #1 (Full Content Technical Data Package)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Sample Problem #1, Part B states "The Offeror shall utilize Attachment 8…and the file titled "AN/SLQ-32(V)6", provided in ViewNet…" ViewNet does not contain a file entitled

"AN/SLQ-32(V)6".

It is requested the Navy identify which file they are referring to [e.g. 'AN-SLQ-32(V)6 Installation LMCN 1331R2 DRAFT']. If it refers to a file not in ViewNet, please provide the file.

Answer: The correct file is AN-SLQ-32(V)6 Installation titled, “LMCN 1331R2 DRAFT” previously posted within the Technical Data Package Viewnet folder.

SI&T – Question 32 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Sample Problem #1 (Full Content Technical Data Package)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Sample Problem 1 Part A) does not specifically mention which combat system element the TDP should describe.

It is requested that the Navy confirm that the full content TDP in Part A) is only for the

AN/SLQ-32(V)6.

Answer: Confirmed.

SI&T – Question 33 RFP Section:

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Sample Problem #1 (Full Content Technical Data Package)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Paragraph 4.3.2.2 specifies the offeror to identify the twenty (20) Top Risks in the categories of technical, schedule, cost and resource.

Paragraph 4.3.4.b.v specifies the offeror to identify any implementation risks.

Paragraph 4.5.1 specifies the offeror to identify four critical schedule risks per Completion CLIN (24 total risks) and for each Sample Problem (16 total risks) for a total of forty (40) risks.

Taken together these three sections specify the identification and discussion of sixty (60) individual risks plus any additional program implementation risks.

As can be expected, a single risk statement may have relevance in addressing risk concerns in multiple areas of the proposal. For example, a significant transition risk (4.3.4.b.v) might also represent a critical completion CLIN schedule risk (4.5.1) and also be one of the Top Five Schedule Risks (4.3.2.2). Re-using a single risk across several risk categories (rather than dividing a risk into multiple, re-worded individual risks) allows for easier interpretation by the evaluators.

We request confirmation that it is acceptable to use a single risk to satisfy multiple risk identification requirements (categories) in the Management and Supplemental Information volumes.

Answer: It is acceptable to consolidate and reference risks. Offerors should cross reference in such cases.

SI&T – Question 40

L

Page:

347, 348-349, 351-352

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L 4.3.2.2 – Risk Management, 4.3.4.b.v – Personnel and 4.5.1 – Supplemental Information Regarding Integrated Master Schedule and Risk.

Document Name:

Final RFP