Government_Response_to_Industry_Bidder_Questions_-_Round_Two.pdf

QUESTION

NO.

RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Vol III Section 1.2 RFP Section J (8) and and Vol III Section 1.5

After reading the Government’s response to RFC Question 8, is it the Government’s intent to have Offerors submit their Small Business Subcontracting Plan twice within Vol III? Vol III Section 1.2 RFP Section J (8) references Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Vol III Section 1.5 is designated as Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Offerors are instructed to submit their Small Business Subcontracting Plan under Vol III, Section

1.5. Upon contract award the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the contract as Attachment J‐8.

Vol III Section 1.3 RFP Section K, page 253‐254, k(1) and k(2)

Can the Government confirm these items are not applicable to this solicitation since they are not checked?

These items are not applicable to this solicitation.

Section C, 2.1 Government Documents, page 26 of Amendment 1 and original Government CD ROM Package

Section C, 2.1 identifies Document CDS‐13‐0011‐00 and references the Common Display System (CDS) Remote Common Electronics Module (CEM) Technical Data Package (TDP), dated 04 October 2013. This document is not included on the referenced CD ROM. Is the Offeror to have been provided a copy? When will a copy be available to Offerors?

Section C, 2.1 Government Documents, has been updated to reflect the correct disk number, CDS‐ 13‐0034. Offerors are in receipt of all required TDP disks.

Section L ‐ 3.4.1, Sub Section 1.4 Other Information

In the Government’s response to RFC question #2, Offerors were directed to follow DFARS 252.242‐7006 & 242.7503. In 252.242‐7006 (a) (1), “Acceptable accounting system” is the terminology cited however in Section L ‐ 3.4.1, Volume III, Section 1.4 (1) the RFP requires the Offeror to provide proof of a Government approval. Would the Government please consider revising the language in Section L, Volume III, Section 1.4 (1) from “Substantiation of Government approval of the Offeror’s accounting system…” to “Substantiation of Government acceptance of The Offeror’s accounting system…” in order for Section L and DFARS 252.242‐7006 to have matching terminology?

Section L ‐ 3.4.1, Sub Section 1.4 language has been updated to reflect “acceptable accounting system” in accordance with DFARS 252.242‐7006. In addition, Section L ‐ 3.4.1, Sub Section 1.4 language has been updated to reflect “acceptable purchasing system" in accordance with DFARS 252.242‐7005.

Volume IV Section 3.6.2, page 291 of 296 and Section 3.1, page 276 of 296

Volume IV, Supplemental Data, currently has a 50 page limit. Will the Government consider an unlimited page limit? At this point Offerors may have to cut portions of our teaming agreements in Volume IV Section 3.6.2 in order to not exceed the 50 page limit as prescribed on Section 3.1, page 276 of 296.

Language has been added under the table at Section L, Volume IV Section 3.6.2 to note that Teaming Agreements are not subject to a page restriction and are not to be included in the fifty

(50) page count for Supplemental Data.

n/a Is it the Government's intent to post a conformed copy of the RFP including the changes made in Amendment 1?

Yes, the Government will post a conformed copy of the solicitation along with Amendment 0002.

Vol III Section 1.2 RFP Sections A through J "Solicitation, Offer and Award"

Should the offer or only submit those pages that the offeror has to input data?

Therefore, pages that do not include input data will not have to be submitted within Sections A though J.

No. Please populate the necessary fill‐ins and submit in accordance with the solicitation.

Vol III Section 1.2 RFP Sections A through J "Solicitation, Offer and Award"

Draft plans for Items #2‐6 listed in Section J are due NLT 30 days after contract award according to Exhibit A Attachment CDRL DD Form 1423, but the amendment RFP states that all items listed under Section J must be included in Pricing Volume III. Is it the Government's intent for the offeror to include full plans in the proposal under Pricing Volume III even though an in depth discussion on these topics have been already addressed in Volume 1? If it is not the governments intent for the offeror to include a full plan in the proposal can the Government update Section J to remove #2‐6? *Exhibit A References: CDRL A003 (CWBS), CDRL A010 (Quality Mgmt Plan), CDRL A014 (Risk Mgmt Plan), CDRL A016 (CM Plan), CDRL A027 (PHS&T Plan)

Language has been added to Section L, 1.2, to inform Offerors that Attachments #2‐6, 10, and 12 are not required to be filled out and provided to the Government with the Offerors' proposal submissions. Attachments #2‐6 are not to be submitted until after contract award, in accordance with Section J of the solicitation.

Vol III Section 1.2 RFP Sections A through J "Solicitation, Offer and Award"

In Section J, the GFI Library is for information only and the Question & Answer sheet is a template. Would the government agree that the aforementioned documents need not be included to comply with the requirement for Volume III, Section 1.2? Are there other items from Section J that do not need to be included to comply with Volume III, Section 1.2?

In accordance with Section L, Volume III, Section 1.2, Offerors are not required to submit the GFI library (Attachment #10) and Question & Answer template (Attachment #12) with their proposal submission. In addition, Section J Attachments #2‐6, do not need to be submitted with the Offerors' proposal submissions.

RFP Section L paragraph 3.4 Volume III:

Price (Factor #3) subparagraph 2.2.1 page 287 and 288 “The following parts must be procured from the vendors listed below:” ‐ page 72 of RFP amendment

CDS Part number: 13253843‐01 listed in the first table calls out MFG PN: 353‐ 7257 REV 0 which we are unable to obtain a quote on. Please confirm that the Government wants us to procure PN: 356‐7036‐503 as called out in vendor item control drawing 13253845. Will the Government please update the parts table listed on page 72 to include the correct manufacturer part number?

The correct P/N for the Variant B is drawing 13253845 (MFG P/N: 356‐7036‐503). Section L paragraph 3.4 Volume III: Price (Factor #3), subparagraph 2.2.1 has been updated to reflect this change.

RFP Section L paragraph 3.4 Volume III:

Price (Factor #3) subparagraph 2.2.1 page 287 and 288 “The following parts must be procured from the vendors listed below:” ‐ page 73 of RFP amendment

ARC Part number: 8501483 (Power Temperature Control Unit ) is listed in the third table and is identified as being GFP. Can the Government remove this part number from the required source table. We cannot provide cost information/ source information .

ARC Part number: 8501483 (Power Temperature Control Unit) has been removed from Attachment J‐13. This part is GFP and cost/source information is not required. Power Temperature Control Unit has been added to Section H, Clause 5252.245‐9109 GOVERNMENT‐

FURNISHED PROPERTY (INCORPORATION) (SEP 1990).

RFP Section L Volume II: Management Approach subparagraph 3.3.1 Schedule Management (Subfactor #1) Page 277 and SOW paragraph 3.13 First Article Requirements page 177 “The Offeror shall propose a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the first production lot awarded under the anticipated IDIQ contract”. (Page 41 in RFP amendment)

Because CLIN 6001, 6002, 6003, and 6004 are stand alone systems, can the offeror provide an IMS for just one of the four FAU CLINs (6001, 6002, 6003, or 6004) or is it the Governments intent to have the offeror provide an IMS for each CLIN (6001, 6002, 6003, and 6004) ? If the Government's intent is to have the offeror include a detailed IMS for all CLIN's (6001, 6002, 6003, and 6004) then can the offeror provide 4 separate IMS's?

It is the Government's intent to have Offerors provide a detailed IMS for CLINS 6001, 6002, 6003, and 6004 as four (4) separate IMS documents.

Section C, 2.1 Government Documents, page 26 of Amendment 1 and Government CD ROM Package, original and delta

Section C, 2.1 identifies Document CDS‐13‐0007‐00 and references the Advanced COTS Enclosure (ACE) Remote Commons Electronics Module CEM) (ARC) Technical Data Package (TDP), dated 15 January 2014 and ACE RCEM TDP delta disk dated 13 June 2014. This document is not included on the referenced CD ROMs. Is the Offeror to have been provided a copy? When will a copy be available to Offerors?

Section C, 2.1 Government Documents, has been updated to reflect the correct disk number, ARC‐ 14‐0001. Offerors are in receipt of all required TDP disks.

RFP Section L Volume II: Management Approach subparagraph 3.3.1 Schedule Management (Subfactor #1) Page 277 and SOW paragraph 3.13 First Article Requirements page 177 “The Offeror shall propose a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the first production lot awarded under the anticipated IDIQ contract”. (Page 41 in RFP amendment)

Can the IMS be unlimited pages to show detail and complexity? If it cannot be unlimited pages will the Government consider counting the 11X17 fold out in Volume II as one page instead of two pages or allowing the offeror to submit the Gantt Chart and Tabular format electronically in a .pdf version?

There is no page count on the IMS. Section L, Volume II 3.3.1 language has been updated to read "There is no page count restriction for the IMS".

Attachment 11, Spares and Repairs Pricing List , Spares Tab

Will the Government please update Attachment 11 to include the new DVI Converter Vendor Item Control Drawing (8477492) and delete the old DVI converter drawing (8500954)?

DVI Converter drawing 8500954 (Transmitter) has been deleted and replaced with 8477492 in Section L, 2.2.1 and on Attachment 11, Spares and Repairs Pricing List , Spares Tab. In addition, drawing 8565149 (DVI receiver) has been be deleted and replaced with 8477493 in Section L,

2.2.1 and on Attachment 11, Spares and Repairs Pricing List , Spares Tab.

RFP Section L 3.2.2 Production Capability #13a,b,c, and d page 278 (page 65‐66 in RFP Amendment)

If the offeror has addressed all items listed in Section L #13a, b, c, and d throughout the proposal (in other sections), does this meet the Government's requirement ?

The purpose of Section L, 3.2.2 Production Capability (Subfactor #2), #13 is to inform Offerors on the Government's interest areas only if a site tour is to be conducted.

Section L, 2.2.1 Supporting Cost or Pricing Data

Section L, 2.2.1 Support Cost or Pricing Data requires Offeror to provide the proposal from the required source for Part Number 8500997, Mission Critical Enclosure (MCE). The required source, Lockheed Martin, will not provide a quotation for the top level part number, 8500997. Instead, Lockheed Martin will quote for three lower level part numbers consisting of PN 8477439‐3, System Monitor Assy and Mounting Hardware; PN 8477439‐1, Cabinet, Electrical Equipment and PN 8477439‐2, Cisco Switch and Mounting Hardware. Is it acceptable to the Government for the Offeror to submit the quote for these three part numbers in lieu of part number 8500997?

Part Number 8500997 has been replaced with 8477439. 8477439 consists of the following part numbers: PN 8477439‐1, PN 8477439‐2, PN 8477439‐3. The Government requests pricing on these three (3) parts numbers.

Section L, 3.5.1 Chapter 2.0: Cost or Pricing Data, page 286. (page 70 in RFP amendment)

Please clarify what quantities the offeror should use to develop its CLIN 0021 total cost given that Attachment 11 contains only stepladder pricing and no specific quantities to be proposed to the Government as part of this CLIN total pricing.

The Government does not plan to provide the step ladder quantities to Offerors beyond what it is identified in the solicitation.

Section L, Volume III: Price (Factor #3), Section 2.2.4 Material Costs, Page 290 of

296. (page 68 in RFP amendment)

If the Government is requesting full detailed cost proposals from the subcontractors – Can we assume the Government is expecting the Prime to provide full cost buildups for every CLIN and each step ladder price proposed?

This could be thousands of pages of cost and pricing data. This requirement seems to be inconsistent with the solicitation instructions and the Attachments the Government has provided for the Offerors to complete and submit for the

FFP CLIN

The Government only requires full cost data from major subcontractors in accordance with the solicitation.

Section L, 3.5.1, 2.2.1 Supporting Cost or Pricing Data, pages 287 and 288. RCEM P/N 8500997, Part Description: Cabinet Assembly, Mission Critical Enclosure—Type 26 (125 VAC), Single Latch, Mfg Name Lockheed Martin. ARC P/N 8501483, Part Description PTC, Mfg Name Currently DN. (page 72 of RFP amendment)

Please explain to Offerors why the specified items must be procured through these required sources. Why are Offereors unable to manufacture these items when there are similar type items that are not required sources?

It is in the best interest of the Government to procure these items as stated in the solicitation.