N0024-13-R-5100_Bidder's_Questions_Set_2.pdf

Question: The WBS contained in the CSDR does not match the WBS in Section J-31.

Will the Government clarify to which WBS Offerors should propose?

Answer: The Government will delete Attachment J-31 and marked it “Reserved” in a forthcoming amendment. Offerors should propose using the WBS identified in Attachment J-29.

SI&T – Question 20 RFP Section:

Attachments J-29, J-31

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

J-29: CSDR,

J-31: Work Breakdown Structure

Document Name:

Final RFP

Document Date:

09/05/13

Question: Section L, 4.5.7 lists the requirements for the Contractor Cost Data Report (CCDR) in Volume 5 – Supplemental Volume, which requires the Offeror to provide a completed CCDR in the Cost Volume. In Section L, 3.1, the Government states that no cost data will appear in any volume other than Cost (VI) and Contracts (VII). Section M does not state in which volume the CCDR will be evaluated.

Will the CCDR be evaluated and, if so, in which factor will the CCDR be evaluated?

Answer: The CCDR will be evaluated under Volume VI - Cost for compliance.

SI&T – Question 29

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 4.5.7: Contractor Cost Data Reporting

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section 4.2 states "…The Offeror shall provide details to demonstrate applied knowledge, understanding and process required to develop full content Technical Data Packages as well as planning and execution of the waterfront test program for DDG 109 USS JASON DUNHAM via the four (4) Sample Problems listed below". Sample Problem #4 states that the agenda and test plans are to be written for a "New Construction Final Contract Agenda". These two statements are in conflict since the DDG 109 is not a new construction ship.

It is requested that the Navy modify the RFP to eliminate these conflicting statements.

Answer: Offerors should treat DDG 109 as a new construction ship for purposes of responding to Sample Problem 4.

SI&T – Question 34

L

Sample Problem #4 (Test Plans)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: SOW Section 3.1.2 states “The Contractor shall maintain a data access library to document all data used on or produced in support of this contract including the production drawings …”

It is requested that the government clarify what is meant by “production drawings”. Are these “Technical Data Package (TDP)” artifacts or in fact Shipbuilder generated production drawings.

Answer: These are TDP artifacts, which in some cases will include OEM production drawings for combat systems equipment. The contractor will not be required to maintain shipbuilder generated production drawings.

SI&T – Question 35

C

Page:

213-214

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

SOW Section C, 3.1.2 (Data Management)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: SOW Section 3.2.2-8 lists the following land based test sites to be used by the ASI&T contractor:

1. CSCS - Center for Surface Combat Systems

2. AEGIS Training Readiness Center (ATRC)

3. CSEDS

4. SCSC

The NAVSEA Question Responses C015 and C106 stated that the LBTS sites available under SI&T are CSEDS and if required, SCSC. The C015 response also indicated the Navy "will post onto ViewNet with the final RFP schematics and details of the SI&T Agents role at each LBTS instead of conducting site visits." As of 11 Sep 13, only the schematics for CSEDS and SCSC have been provided. No information about the ASI&T Agents roles have been provided.

Additionally, Section L 4.1.4, does not list CSCS and ATRC as part of the list of government facilities to discuss in the Offeror’s response.

If it is the Navy's intention to have the Offerors include CSCS and ATRC in the response, it is requested that the government modify Section L4.1.4 to include these two additional sites.

It is further requested that the Navy provide schematics and floor plans and description of these facilities per the NAVSEA Question Response C015.

For all required LBTS, it requested that the government provide a description of the ASI&T Agents role at each facility per NAVSEA Question Response C015.

Answer: CSCS and ATRC are not part of the Government facilities to be utilized in this response. The RFP section 3.2.2 will be corrected to eliminate these facilities. The SI&T contractor’s role at the LBTS is to validate ship test procedures.

SI&T – Question 36

C

Page:

217-218

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

SOW Section 3.2.2 (Advance Planning Activities)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section C 3.10.11 Subparagraph 1 states: “The Contractor shall provide the necessary management and engineering services efforts to maintain and modify as necessary the design of CG 47 and DDG 51 Class Combat System compartments and Topside arrangements. The Contractor shall utilize previously developed CAD and analysis models and tools for the engineering services efforts of the Topside.” In response to NAVSEA Question Response CO32, Section C, Paragraph 3.10.11, Item 2 the Government stated, relative to performance prediction models, that: “The Government will not provide access to ANY models for contract execution.” NAVSEA Question Response C028 states: “The government will not provide the CADD/CATIA source files.”

If it is the government’s intention to not provide access to previously developed CG 47 and DDG 51 Class CAD models for the Offeror’s use during execution, then please remove the second “shall” from Section 3.10.11 Subparagraph 1 to reflect this decision.

Answer: Consistent with NAVSEA Question Response C032, the Government will not provide the tools used to develop the CAD and analysis models for contract execution. However, the Government intends to provide the data from the models/tools in an exportable format for the Contractor to use in compliance with SOW paragraph 3.10.11. SOW paragraph 3.10.11 will be revised as follows:

From: “The Contractor shall utilize previously developed CAD and analysis models and tools for the engineering services efforts of the Topside.”

To: “The Contractor shall utilize previously developed CAD and analysis data for the engineering services efforts of the Topside.”

SI&T – Question 37

C

Page:

234-235

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

SOW Section C 3.10.11

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section C 3.10.1 Subparagraph 12 states: “The Contractor shall provide 3D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models of Combat System space arrangements and Topside Sensor Models to facilitate the preparation of ship integration designs. Utilize the existing CG- 47 and DDG-51 Class 3D CAD models where appropriate.” In response to question C032 Section C, Paragraph 3.10.11, Item 2 the Government stated, relative to performance prediction models, that: “The Government will not provide access to ANY models for contract execution.”

NAVSEA Question Response C028 states: “The government will not provide the CADD/CATIA source files.”

If it is the Government’s intention to not provide access to existing CG-47 and DDG-51 Class 3- D CAD models for the Offeror’s use during execution, request Section 3.10.1 Subparagraph 12 be updated to reflect this decision.

Answer: Consistent with NAVSEA Question Response C028, the Government will not provide the source code or tools used to develop the CAD models of the Combat System space arrangements for contract execution; however the Government intends to provide the data from the models in an exportable format for contract execution. SOW paragraph 3.10.1 subparagraph 12 will be updated as follows:

From: “Utilize the existing CG- 47 and DDG-51 Class 3D CAD models where appropriate.”

To: “Utilize the existing CG- 47 and DDG-51 Class 3D CAD data where appropriate.”

SI&T – Question 38

C

Page:

229-231

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

SOW Section C 3.10.1

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: SOW Sections 3.10.13.2 specifies that the contractor “shall maintain a database which maintains configuration of the adaptation data parameters for all AEGIS ships in the fleet” and

3.10.13.3 specifies that the contractor “shall update and maintain adaptation data tools to be able to support adaptation data generation and configuration management in a format readable by a SMILES unit.” Also 3.10.13.10 specifies that the contractor “shall provide maintenance for Web CAT/ADIDS/ADDAGe.”

Is it NAVSEA’s intention, in these three requirements, to have the Offeror update and maintain the adaptation data using the tools described above or for the offeror to update and maintain the actual tools, including the source code.

Answer: The requirement is for the Contractor to update and maintain adaptation data using the tools described above. The Contractor is also responsible for updating and maintaining the tools.

SI&T – Question 39

C

Page:

236-237

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

SOW Section 3.10.13 Combat System Alignment

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Paragraph L4.5.7.a states “The CSDR Plan will include Contract level 3 and any lower level WBS elements designated by the program office as being high risk, high value, high technical interest.” The CSDR plan in this RFP has some WBS legs at the 4th level. Attachment J-25 (Cost Evaluation Workbook) is being priced at the 3rd level WBS.

It is recommended that we populate the CSDR at the 3rd level to be consistent with the rest of the

RFP.

Answer: The CSDR Plan included with the RFP does include specific WBS elements at the 4th level as those specific elements have designated by the program office as being high risk, high value, and high technical interest. For proposal purposes, i.e. Attachment J-25, pricing at the 3rd level WBS is acceptable.

SI&T – Question 42

B, L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices) and Section L 4.5.7.a

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Question: The CSDR will include costs for all CLINs and SLINs. CLIN 0014 and Option CLINs 1014, 2014, 3014, 4014, 5014, 6014, 7014, 8014 and 9014 could potentially contain many SLINs based on the Pricing Tiers as defined by Attachment J-18.

It is requested that the government clarify that the CSDR submittal requirement for Volume VI be adjusted that only Max Tier (quantity 10) values be included.

Answer: Offerors may submit only the Max Tier values for the CSDR submittal requirement for Volume VI. The requirement for the Offerors to submit a complete Attachment J-18 remains unchanged.

SI&T – Question 43

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L 4.5.7 CSDR (Contract Cost and Software Data Report)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section L4.3.4.b.ii states “This plan shall be clearly traceable to the Cost Volume (Volume VI). The Government Estimated Labor Mix for level of effort CLINSs is provided in Attachment J-25. The Offeror shall propose the Government Estimated Hours provided in their proposal.” Attachment J-25 Cost Evaluation Workbook states “do not include CLIN 0014 Engineering Assessments.” The Attachment J-22 Staffing Plan is generated from Attachment J- 25.

Is it the government’s intention to have the Offeror exclude CLIN 0014, and options CLINs 1014, 2014, 3014, 4014, 5014, 6014, 7014, 8014 and 9014 from the J-22 Staffing Plan?

Answer: CLIN 0014 is a Firm Fixed Priced line item and not a Level of Effort line item.

Therefore, a Staffing Plan is not required for CLIN 0014.

SI&T – Question 44

L

Page:

348-349

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L 4.3.4.b.ii (Personnel)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section B includes CLIN 8024 and SLIN 8024JA “Opt. Yr Eight Future ACB/Future TI AMOD” which is defined as a CPIF and references Note B “Incentive Fee/Award Fee”. There is no corresponding administrative CLIN or SLIN to record the associated Award Fee.

It is requested that the government add to Section B, CLIN 8037 and SLIN 8037JA as the corresponding administrative CLIN and SLIN to record the Award Fee associated with SLIN

8024JA.

Answer: The Government will revise Section B to include the corresponding Award Fee CLIN and SLIN for 8024JA. This change will be incorporated in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 48

B

Page:

159-160

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B CLIN 8024 and SLIN 8024JA

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The government did not provide any description or references to Notes for this SLIN.

It is requested that the government add the appropriate SLIN description and references to applicable Section B Notes.

Answer: The Government will add the appropriate SLIN description and references to 9037KA in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 49

B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B SLIN 9037KA

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In Section B, Note B, Paragraph “1) INCENTIVE FEE” the government lists SLIN 7020HA which is marked as “Reserved” on Page 132 of 374, It is requested that government remove the SLIN from Section B, Note B, Paragraph “1)

INCENTIVE FEE”.

Answer: The Government will remove 7020HA from Section B, Note B, Paragraph 1) INCENTIVE FEE in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 50

B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B, Note B Paragraph 1)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In the table listening the applicable SLINs, Target Fee and Min Fee, the government has included SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA. These SLINs are marked as “Reserved” on pages 50 of 374 and 127 of 374, respectively.

It is requested that the government remove reference to SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA from this table.

Answer: The Government will remove SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA from Section B, Note B, Paragraph 1) INCENTIVE FEE in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 51

B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B, Note B, Paragraph 1) Incentive Fee

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In the table listing the applicable SLINs, Base Fee and Award Fee, the government has included SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA. These SLINs are marked as “Reserved” on pages 50 of 374 and 127 of 374 respectively.

It is requested that government remove reference to SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA from this table.

Answer: The Government will remove SLINs 3013DA and 7013HA from Section B, Note B, Paragraph 2) Award Fee in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 52

B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B, Note B, Paragraph 2) Award Fee

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Government excludes reference to CLINs0019, 0020, and 0024 in the introduction paragraph preceding the table. The table includes CLINs 0019, 0020, and 0024.

It is requested that the government include CLINs 0019, 0020, and 0024 in the introduction paragraph.

Answer: The Government will revise Section B, Note B, Paragraph 3) Table in the forthcoming amendment to include CLINs 0019, 0020, and 0024.

SI&T – Question 53

B

Page:

194-196

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B, Note B, Paragraph 3) Table

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Under Section L, Paragraph 4.6, Section 1.1, paragraph c the RFP states “The Offeror shall segregate its proposed hours and costs by 3rd digit WBS element (e.g., WBS 1.2.3, Detailed Design) in accordance with the WBS structure provided under Attachment J-31.” In Attachment J-31 (WBS) the 3rd level WBS is noted as X.1.2.3 where X is the CLIN #.

Please confirm that the WBS to be populated in Attachment J-25 Cost Evaluation Worksheet should be “1.2.3” and not “X.1.2.3”.

Additionally, it is requested that the government clarify that the CWBS in Attachment J-31 is to be applied in the Attachment J-29 CSDR. The current CWBS in Attachment J-29 does not align with Attachment J-31.

Answer: Yes, confirmed that the WBS to be populated in Attachment J-25 Cost Evaluation Worksheet should be “1.2.3” and not “X.1.2.3”. Attachment J-31 will be deleted in a forthcoming amendment and marked as “Reserved.”

SI&T – Question 54

L, J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L, Paragraph 4.6, Section 1.1 – Cost Summaries paragraph C Total Cost Summary, Attachment J-25, Attachment J-29, and Attachment J-31

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section B, Note B Incentive Fee/Award Fee provides a table with SLINs, Target Fee and Min Fee. Government has not provided direction on how this table should be applied in calculating fee for these applicable SLINs.

Request clarification that the government intends the table to represent the maximum fee structure for these CPIF SLINs that may be proposed by the Offeror?

Answer: Section B, Note B currently identifies the maximum Target Fee and Award Fee that can be proposed. Offerors are directed to Section I clause FAR 52.216-10 for instructions regarding maximum incentive fee for the applicable line items.

SI&T – Question 55

B

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section B, Note B Incentive Fee/Award Fee

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Attachment J-25, spreadsheet 2b states “The Offeror shall populate this spreadsheet with the proposed hours (by option year) for each CLIN. The total proposed hours must be the sum of the prime + subcontractor hours. Offerors may not add new labor categories to this mix.”

Is it the government’s intent for the Offeror to only bid the labor category and levels listed or may the Offeror add additional labor category levels?

For example, only a Mid level Industrial /Test Engineering is listed in J-25 however the Offeror may want to propose either a Senior, Mid, or Junior level personnel.

Additionally Section L, Paragraph 4.5.5 states that Offerors shall “include the proposed Staffing Plan reflected in Volume III Management Approach and be clearly traceable to Volume VI Cost.

Offerors shall provide a Staffing Plan in the format provided in Attachment J-22.” J-22 requires government and Offeror labor categories. Attachment J-23 provides labor category definitions:

- PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

- PROJECT/OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

- FINANCIAL/BUSINESS SUPPORT/ADMIN

- SYSTEM / ELECTRICAL / MECHANICAL ENGINEER

- SOFTWARE ENGINEER

- ILS

- INDUSTRIAL/TEST ENGINEER

Within each labor category in J-23 government has provided expected functions and associated labor category levels for those functions (Junior, Mid, Senior).

It is requested that the government clarify that that it is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine the appropriate mix of labor category levels within each labor category by CLIN/SLIN and that the levels provided in J-23 are not all inclusive for the performance of this contract.

Answer: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to determine the appropriate mix of labor category levels within each CLIN/SLIN. The labor category levels provided in Attachment J-23 are not all inclusive. The Labor category levels, however, must be adhered to for Attachments J-25 and J-34.

SI&T – Question 56

J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment J-25 Cost Evaluation Worksheet 2b Proposed Mix, Worksheet 2c Gov-Ktr Matrix and Attachment J-23 Staffing Place Definitions

Document Name:

Final RFP

Questions: Section C3.10.4.6 states “The Contractor shall also validate Contractor prepared ACS ship test procedures at the CSEDS Production Test Center (PTC), or, when necessary, in ships.” This is in conflict with the NAVSEA Question Response C098 which states “The Government will revise Section L4.2.4 (now L4.1.4) to align with SOW Section 3.10.4.6 in the Final RFP to state that the Offeror will validate the Contractor-prepared AEGIS Combat System (ACS) ship test procedures at Government facilities”. The final RFP did not include that change as stated in C098.

It is requested that the Government remove reference to the PTC from the SOW.

Answer: The SOW Section C 3.10.4.6 will be revised to remove the reference to the PTC.

SI&T – Question 57

C

Page:

231-232

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section C 3.10.4.6 Test Package and Procedure Development

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The J-14 Table of Contents lists 27 separate Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

Of the 27 listed, only 9 SOPs were included with J-14.

It is requested that the government provide the missing 18 SOPs. The SOPs not provided are:

01-01, 01-02, 01-03E, 01-04, 01-05E, 01-05W, 01-06W, 02-01, 02-02, 02-03, 02-04, 02-05, 03- 02W, 03-03, 04-03, 15-02, 15-04, 15-05.

Answer: The following SOPs exist and Attachment J-14 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment to cite only the below list. All existing SOPs for AMT have been reposted to Viewnet.

01-01W 01-01E 01-02W 01-02E 01-03W 01-03E 01-04W 01-04E 01-05W 01-05E 02-02W 02-02E 02-03W 02-03E 02-04W 02-04E 03-01W 02-05E 03-02W 03-01E 04-01W 04-01E 04-02W 04-02E 04-03W 04-03E 15-01W 15-01E 15-04W 15-02E 15-05W 15-04E 15-09W 15-05E 15-11W 15-09E 15-12W 15-11E

SI&T – Question 59

J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment J-14 AMT Standard Operating Procedures

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Due to the deletion of Sections X.7.4 (SDTS) and X.7.5 (PRA Testbed) in the WBS definitions, the numbering of the WBS Definitions worksheet tab and the WBS worksheet tab do not match in Section X.7.

Which format/structure and corresponding numbering should be followed for Section X.7?

Answer: Attachment J-31 will be deleted in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 60

J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

J-31, Section X.7: Test Evaluation and Certification

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The RFP defines “major Subcontractors” in Section L-3, 4.4 Volume IV – Past Performance as “the lower of either — (i) $12.5 million; or (ii) both more than the pertinent certified cost or pricing data threshold ($700,000) and more than 10 percent of the prime Contractor proposal), if any.”

Since CLIN 0014 has multiple permutations and only Tier 10 will be considered by the Government when calculating the Government Total Evaluated Price (GTEP), can the Offeror assume that only Subcontractor effort in Tier 10 counts toward the “major Subcontractor” definition?

Answer: Yes, against CLIN 0014, the Offeror can assume that only Subcontractor effort in Tier 10 counts toward the “major Subcontractor” definition.

SI&T – Question 61

C

Page:

214-215

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section C Part 1 – 3.1.3.1 & 3.1.3.4

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section L states, “[t]he Offeror shall develop a Staffing Plan for each CLIN (0001 through 0924)...” As requested, the J-22 Staffing Plan for CLIN 0014 would require all hours from multiple permutations in Attachment J-18, CLIN 0014 AWS Element Assessments Pricing Table, to be included.

Would the Government amend the RFP to require only Tier 10 hours from CLIN 0014 in the J- 22 Staffing Plan for CLIN 0014?

Answer: Please see the response to Question 44.

SI&T – Question 62

L

Page:

347-349

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

L-3, 4.3.3b

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: In previous NAVSEA Competitive Solicitations written direction was provided for the Offeror to fill out paragraphs 1. Contract Information and 2. Contract Relevancy of the Past Performance Questionnaire J-Attachment, prior to providing it to the Customer to be completed.

Please note that this direction is not contained in the AEGIS SI&T Final Solicitation Attachment J-24 Past Performance Questionnaire.

It is requested that the government confirm that the Offeror is to fill out paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Past Performance Questionnaire J-Attachment prior to providing it to the Customer to be completed.

Answer: Yes, the Offeror may fill out paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Past Performance Questionnaire prior to providing it to the Customer to be completed.

SI&T – Question 63

J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment J-24 Past Performance Questionnaire

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Exhibit A Table of Contents Matrix lists 18 CDRLs (A001-A018), however only the first 8 CDRLs (A001-A008) were provided per the RFP synopsis mod dated 9/13/2013.

It is requested that the government provide the Offeror the additional 10 missing CDRLs (A009- A018).

Exhibit A Table of Contents Matrix lists 12 Attachments. None of these 12 attachments have been provided.

It is requested that the government provide the Offeror the 12 missing Attachments.

Exhibit A Table of Contents contains Contract References for each of the CDRLs. In several instances the references do not align with the Section C SOW paragraphs which are referenced in the associated CDRLs. Specifically in the Table of Contents:

• CDRL A001 (Contractor Performance Report(CPR)) references SOW para. 3.1.4.3.1 (which does not exist). The CDRL references SOW para. 3.1.3.3.1, which is the correct reference for this

CDRL.

• CDRL A002 (Data Accession List (DAL)) references SOW para. 3.1.3 (Business and Financial Management). The CDRL references SOW para. 3.1.2 (Data Management), which the correct reference for this CDRL.

• CDRL A003 (Contractor’s Progress, Status and Management Report) references SOW para.

3.1.4.3.1 (which does not exist). The CDRL references SOW para. 3.1.3, which is the correct reference for this CDRL.

• CDRL A004 (Data Copy, Contractor filed (Archiving of CDRLs)) references SOW para

3.1.4 (which does not exist). The DD Form 1423-1 references SOW para. 3.1.2, which is the correct reference for this CDRL.

• CDRL A013 (Integrated Master Schedule) references SOW para. 3.1.1 (Subcontractor/Supplier Management). The SOW para. 3.1 appears to be the appropriate reference for the IMS CDRL.

It is requested that the government review the above and align the Table of Contents SOW paragraph references with the CDRL references as identified above.

Answer: All 18 CDRLs were posted to FBO on 13 September 2013 and the Government reconfirmed its availability on FBO. The Government will revise the CDRL references in Exhibit A to align to the SOW in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 64

J

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Exhibit A CDRLs DD Form 1423

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The Offeror’s FRFP Question Set #1 dated 15 September 2013 requested a full set of MRCs as listed in Attachment J-3 in order for the Offerors to accurately bid Firm Fixed Price CLIN 0014. Subsequent to this request some but not all of the MRCs have been provided via ViewNet.

It is requested that the government provide the following missing MRCs to enable the Offeror to complete the bid.

MIP PRDCTY MIP PRDCTY MIP PRDCTY MIP PRDCTY

3140/500-71 AP-1 4111/020-20 AP-1 4560/505-71 AP-3 4829/001-71 Blank 3140/R51-71 AP-1 4111/020-20 AP-2 4560/505-71 Blank 4840/008-71 AP-3

3140/R02-71 AP-1 4111/020-20 AP-3 4560/505-71 AP-4 4840/008-71 AP-4

3140/R02-71 AP-2 4111/020-20 AP-4 4560/R14-31 AP-2 4840/008-71 Blank

4102/001-71 AP-3 4111/024-51 AP-1 4560/R14-31 AP-6 4840/008-71 AP-5

4102/001-71 AP-6 4121/046-41 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-6 4840/008-71 AP-6

4102/001-71 AP-9 4121/047-11 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-7 4840/008-71 Blank

4111/003-61 AP-1 4121/048-41 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-8 4840/008-71 AP-8

4111/003-61 AP-2 4121/051-71 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-9 4911/500-61 AP-1

4111/005-61 AP-1 4451/R50-19 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-10 4911/500-61 AP-2

4111/009-61 AP-3 4451/R50-19 AP-2 4560/506-71 AP-11 4953/503-57 AP-1

4111/010-61 AP-1 4560/502-71 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-12 5321/001-71 AP-1

4111/010-61 AP-2 4560/R08-71 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-13 5321/R51-71 AP-1

4111/010-61 AP-4 4560/R13-71 AP-1 4560/506-71 AP-14

4111/010-61 AP-5 4560/R13-71 AP-7 4560/506-71 AP-15

4111/016-B0 AP-4 4560/R13-71 AP-8 4829/001-71 AP-1

Answer: The Government will provide a corrected Attachment J-3 in a forthcoming amendment that matches the posted MRCs in Viewnet. The correct procedures are posted in the ICMP folder.

SI&T – Question 65

C

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section C 3.9 AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) Element Assessments

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA Question Response C119 verified that redline PDF's of the Technical Data Package (TDP) artifacts are an acceptable submittal format for Sample Problem #1.

It is requested that the Government provide the current revision of the legacy drawing entitled Guided Missile Destroyer DDG-51 General Arrangements Topside Configuration (802-5774038) in PDF format via ViewNet to facilitate redline drawing mark-ups of the topside arrangements.

Answer: This drawing has been posted to Viewnet in the Ship Space Arrangements folder as Topside Configuration General Arrangements (802-5774038).

SI&T – Question 66

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L, Sample Problem #1 (Full Content TDP)

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: Section L 4.1.4.a states "The Offeror shall provide details on the planned facilities and equipment usage to support new and in-service (5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 8.x, 9.x, etc.) AEGIS Integration and Test.” Reference paragraphs for Section L 4.1.4 (Section C paragraphs 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.4, 3.7.1, 3.10.4) do not reference in-service baselines.

The only reference in the SOW to tasking for in-service baselines is in paragraph 3.9 (AWS Element Assessments) which describes tasking for in-service baselines 5.3 through 9.x. This tasking is shipboard not land-based.

It is requested that the government clarify the tasking in Section L4.1.4 for in-service baselines.

Answer: The Government’s reference to the AEGIS baselines refers to the integration and test of in-service baselines during a test program. The Offeror shall describe any use of the land-based facilities to support integration and test for either new construction or in-service ships, including in-service baselines.

SI&T – Question 67

L

Section L 4.1.4 Use of Test Facilities and Equipment for Integration and Test

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: CLIN 9024 will contain similar work scope to CLIN 8024. CLIN 9024 is CPIF/AF.

CLIN 9037 captures award fee associated with CLIN 9024.

The CLIN most likely to capture award fee associated with CLIN 8024 is the currently

“RESERVED” CLIN 8037.

Should CLIN 8037 be unreserved to capture the Award Fee associated with CLIN 8024?

Answer: The Government will revise Section B to include the corresponding Award Fee CLIN and SLIN for 8024JA. This change will be incorporated in a forthcoming amendment.

SI&T – Question 69

B

Page:

158-159

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA Question Response C091 states “The Test procedures are required to be updated as part of this sample problem.” NAVSEA Question Response C107 states “The Link- 22 test that the Offeror is to provide is similar in nature to the level of detail and test objectives as described in the Link-16 test procedure provided as GFI.” Developing Link-22 test procedures similar to Link-16, ultimately requires test steps describing operation of the actual hardware. In order to successfully describe these steps with a similar level of detail as the Link- 16 procedures, information regarding Link-22 related hardware and expected system implementation is required.

It is requested that the government provide the following information:

a. Link 22 Link-Level COMSEC Procedures

b. Data to identify how Link 22 is integrated into the existing system

c. Identification of the Maintenance Requirement Cards that will be part of the Link-22 Maintenance Plan

Answer: There are no Link-22 Test Procedures. Offerors are directed to use the available Link- 16 Test Procedures, provided as GFI, to create a Link-22 Test Procedure that aligns with Link-22 GFI that has been provided.

SI&T – Question 70

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L 4.2.2 Sample Problem 4, Link 22 Test Plans

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: The Sample problem states “Offeror shall develop a sea trials agenda and the test plans necessary to test the functionality of Link 22”. The GFI Link 16 Test Plan that was provided is for a CG-47, not a DDG-51.

It is requested that the government provide the Link 16 test procedures for the DDG-51 platform.

Answer: The Offeror should be able to make the changes necessary to develop a Test Plan for a DDG-51 using a Test Plan for a CG-47 that has been provided as GFI.

SI&T – Question 71

L

Page:

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Attachment 21, Sample Problems 05/02/2013, Sample Problem 4, Link-22 Test Plans

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA provided the following password protected GFI on ViewNet: Link-16 Test Procedure [6A411C203(N) Link 16 Functional Test_6A411C203(N)[1].pdf]. This document is required to answer Sample Problem #4.

Does the Government intend on providing the password so the file may be accessed on ViewNet? If not, will the Government please provide the document without password protection?

Answer: The Government has posted a non-protected version, a test procedure template, and a test procedure writing guide in the folder with the Original test procedure.

SI&T – Question 78

L

Section L 4.2.2 Sample Problem 4, Link 22 Test Plans

Document Name:

Final RFP

Question: NAVSEA October 4, 2013 response SI&T - Question 30 requested that DWG- 7119552 (NTDS TO SINGLE MODE FIBER CONVERTER) be provided. The response states "The drawing has been posted in the AN/SLQ-32 folder on ViewNet". This drawing is not in ViewNet as of 08 October.

It is requested that the government post DWG-7119552 (NTDS TO SINGLE MODE FIBER CONVERTER) to ViewNet.

Answer: The drawing will be posted in the AN/SLQ-32 folder.

SI&T – Question 80

B

Page:

158-159

RFP Para., Clause, or Other Definitive Citation:

Section L – Volume II, Sample Problem 1 (Full Content Technical Data Package)

Document Name:

Final RFP