140827_PCS_Final_RFP_Questions_Response.pdf

N00024-14-R-6203

Final RFP Questions and Responses

Number Topic RFP Reference Question Response

1 Proposal Foldout Dimensions RFP, Section L Page 129, Paragraph L2.0.5.1 Foldout size definition is somewhat ambiguous and allows for potential multiple interpretations. Use of three folds implies 4 panels, with a possible page width of approximately 31.0 inches (8.5 + 7.5+ 7.5+ 7.5).

Recommend Navy provide maximum page allowable width to ensure consistency across vendor proposals.

RFP, Section L, Paragraph L2.0.5.1 and L 2.0.5.2 have been updated to specify the foldout size shall not exceed 31 inches in width.

2 Management Volume

Foldouts

RFP, Section L Volume II; Page 134; Paragraph

L 2.0.5.2

We believe the Staffing Plans and IMS alone will require three foldouts. The Facility Plan and Organizational

Charts will require 2 additional. Consider increasing the number of foldouts allowed in the Management

Volume to five.

There is no RFP change to increase the number of foldouts allowed for the Management Volume.

3 Past Performance ratings RFP, Section M, Page 173, Paragraph M 2.4

Rating Systems

It would seem that awarding a contract to a vendor with little to no documented relevant experience (as prime contractor) in the development of similar mission critical software intensive systems would be viewed as extremely high risk by the government. Ratings for “offerors without a record of relevant past performance” should reflect this high risk with a rating of unacceptable or as having a major weakness or deficiency.

There is no RFP change to the Rating Systems for the relevant past performance

4 TI 18/APB 17 Scope for CPIF pricing

Attachment 2, Appendix A, Page A-5, Paragraph. 1.5.3.5

This statement seems to have no relevancy to the scope of TI 16/APB 17. Additionally, if actual VPM implementation is required for TI 18/APB 17 (i.e, the PCS ability to preset and launch 44 weapons for VA

Block V VPM, V10), should this requirement be explicitly stated in Appendix B to Attachment 2 and should the cost of this PCS capability be estimated and provided as part of the cost proposal for CPIF line item 0105

? Or will this be considered a new “approved capability item (CI)” that will be funded by LOE line items?

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 1.5.3.5 for VPM has been removed.

5 General comment for CPIF pricing of TI/APB line items

Attachment 2, Page 4, & Attachment 2, Appendices A through D

It appears that, outside of the re-architecture requirement, that there are no other added functional requirements or capabilities that require pricing for the CPIF line items for TI 16/APB 17, TI 18/APB 17 and TI

18 /APB 19, and that “the requirements and design through Test Readiness Review (TRR) of the approved

Capability Items will be executed under the LOE CLIN as detailed in Appendix D.” That said, it appears that the TI 18 APBs have no known scope (that require to be priced under the CPIF line items) beyond an estimate of porting the PCS software from TI 16 to TI 18, which would only apply to APB 17( and not APB 19) and include a generic “cost of doing business” cost estimate for the APB design, development and test process, independent of new functionality per newly approved CI’s. Does this represent the governments understanding of what needs to be priced under those CPIF line items? Please clarify what scope the navy requires to be priced under the APB CPIF line items 0005, 0105, and 0205, as this understanding is critical to generating a properly priced cost proposal.

There are no RFP and SOW changes to address the

TI/APB, Engineering Services, and Architecture for pricing. The TI/APB, Engineering Services, and

Architecture specific requirements are documented in the SOW and CDRL exhibits.

6 Scope of TI 16/APB 17 RFP, Section L 2.0.5.1, Page 130, Paragraph

1.1.1 Design- Capability Improvements

These two capabilities are cited as two “TI16/APB 17 capability improvements” in this Section, but are not cited in the SOW or Appendix A, or in any referenced specifications. Please clarify whether these two capabilities need to be priced as part of the TI 16/APB 17 CPIF line item 0005; or are just sample capabilities to demonstrate the offerors understanding of how they would integrate these capabilities into PCS per section L ?.

There are no RFP and SOW changes to the Capability

Improvements requirements. The RFP Section L

1.1.1 Capabilities are not directly related to the SOW

and Cost estimate. The two Capability

Improvements are potential capabilities (sample capabilities) which do not require to be priced as part of TI16/APB17 CPIF line item 0005.

7 Proposal Foldout Margins and

Font

RFP, Section L, Page 127, Paragraph L2.0.1 and RFP, Section L, Page 134, Paragraph

L2.0.5.2

On page 127 L2.0.1 it states that the narrative material in the proposal will have at a minimum one-inch margins and the text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material may use no smaller than size 8 point Times New Roman font. Do the one-inch margins and eight-inch font requirements apply to foldouts, such as with the IMS or can alternate margins and text size be used?

There are no RFP changes to margin and font sizes.

The one-inch minimum margin size and no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman font size applies to the foldouts.

8 System Design Document Attachment 2, Appendix E, Page E-4, Paragraph 1.3.2.4 (top line)

A021 specifies a Software Design Document. Is the intent of the aforementioned System Design Document to be a Software Design Document or was the reference to the CDRL A021 incorrect?

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix E Paragraph 1.3.2.4 has been updated to change System Design

Document to Software Design Description which matches the requirements in CDRL A021.

9 SEMP Attachment 2, Appendix A, Page A-1, Paragraph 1.1

Should this be referencing the SEMP instead of the SIP? Attachment 2 - SOW, Appendix A, Paragraph 1.1 has been updated to change SIP to SEMP document reference.

10 APB15 PSpec TI-16 Integrated Master Plan (Rev (-) of 30

May 2014, Page 1

Should this be APB17 PSpec? The TI-16 Integrated Master Plan has been updated for the Final APB-17 PSPEC vice the Final APB-15

PSPEC reference. The Attachment 2 - SOW Section

2.1 Applicable documents and Attachment 3 - GFI

have been update with the updated TI-16 IMP document details. The updated TI-16 IMP will be provided to the eTIC.

11 APB17 First Platform Delivery Attachment 2, Statement of Work, Page 5 Is the first DRR for (V)1 or (V)6? Is the CLIN0005 efforts ending with the first DRR or the (V)1 DRR? CLIN0005 efforts will end with the first DRR.

Attachment 2 - SOW Section 1.4 Figure has been updated with the first variant as (V)6 vice (V)1 which matches the updated TI-16 IMP.

12 Attachment L-1 Past

Performance Questionnaire and Past Performance Section

3.0 clarification

RFP, Section L, Page 138; Paragraphs 3.1 and

3.2 AND RFP, Section L; Page 160; Attachment

L-1 Past Performance Questionnaire

The instructions in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of section L 3.0 appear to ask for additional information that does not correlate exactly to the requested information in L-1. The last sentence of the RFP extract from

Attachment L-1 Past Performance Questionnaire above indicates that all past performance information submitted by the Offeror can only be provided using the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-1 of the solicitation. Please clarify if the information requested in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 are to be included within L-1 entirely as stated above; or is the information requested in sections 3.1 and 3.2 to be provided separately, not utilizing the Attachment L-1 Questionnaire? If the Questionnaire is not applicable to providing the requested information in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, please delete the last sentence of the RFP extract provided in the above section.

The RFP Section L, Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 have been updated to clarify the requested information shall be provided as part of the Past Performance

Questionnaire, Attachment L-1.

13 Facility Security Clearance

Required/ DD254

RFP, Section L Volume IV – SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION; Page 141; Paragraph 4.6

The requirements of this section indicate we are to provide the BOEs for labor estimates for the United

States TI/APB development efforts against certain CLINs. The solicitation requirement ends by stating these will be used to ‘assist in evaluation of sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.7’. Should this also be extended to include solicitation requirements through section 2.1.7, or was it intended to only be used as stated, 1.1.1 through

1.1.7?

The RFP Section L Volume IV Paragraph 4.6 has been updated. The BOEs will be for both the Technical, Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.7, and Management, Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.7 requirements.

14 Supplemental Information

BOEs

RFP, Section L Volume IV – SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION; Page 141; Paragraph 4.7

The requirements of this section indicate we are to provide the BOE for Bill of Material and detailed labor estimates for the United States TI/APB Test Bay Hardware efforts (CLINs 0007 and 0107). The solicitation requirement ends by stating these will be used to ‘assist in evaluation of sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.7’.

Should this also be extended to include solicitation requirements through section 2.1.7, or was it intended to only be used as stated, 1.1.1 through 1.1.7?

The RFP Section L Volume IV Paragraph 4.6 has been updated. The BOEs will be for both the Technical, Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.7, and Management, Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.7 requirements.

15 Submarine Launched UUV RFP, Section L, Page 130; Paragraph 1.1.1 It is not clear from the description whether the intent is that the PCS will receive data and perform real time data analysis from the ASM-X during only the pre-launch phase of the launch sequence, or during post-launch as well, or whether this requirement applies throughout the sequence. In order to identify and describe the changes required for the PCS top level design and interface impact, this clarification is necessary.

The is no RFP Section L change for the Capability

Improvements requirements. PCS should have the ability to do real time analysis during the pre and post launch events with the launcher and payload communication support. ASM-X is to do real time surveillance; therefore PCS should be able to support real time data flows.

16 TI-16/APB-17 Facilities for

(V)8

Attachment 2, Appendix A, Pages A-1 and A-

10; Paragraph 6.1

In the opening paragraph for this section (Page A-1), it states the following: “The Contractor shall design, develop, test, integrate and deliver the AN/BYG-1 PCS TI-16/APB-17 PCS for variants (V) 1, 2, 6 and 9 and accomplish common efforts for (V)8 under CLIN 0005.”

However, this section of the RFP only says the offeror must have HSIT facilities for Versions 1, 2, 6 and 9. Is the intent that the offeror should also plan on having HSIT facilities for (V)8 as well?

Attachment 2 - SOW, both Appendix A and

Appendix D Opening Paragraph and Paragraph 6.1 have been updated for the applicable variants including removing (V)2 variant and added details for (V)8 efforts. Yes, facilities needs to support (V)8 variant.

17 Baseline Reference Attachment 2, Appendix A, Page A-5;

Paragraph 1.5.3.5

This appears under the TI-16/APB-17 SOW section and references the TI-16/APB-17 baseline. Is TI-16/APB-

17 an incorrect baseline reference? Was this meant to state that VPM work would begin under TI-16/APB-15 and TI-16/APB-17 would continue that baseline work? Or is the intent that TI-16/APB-17 would be the initial

VPM design and development baseline?

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 1.5.3.5 for VPM has been removed.

18 Baseline Reference Attachment 2, Appendix A, Page A-8;

Paragraph 2.4.2

Is the reference to reviewing TI-14/APB-13 test procedures an incorrect reference? We believe the correct reference should be either the TI-14/APB-15 or TI-16/APB-15 test procedures for use in TI-16/APB-17.

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 2.4.2 has been updated to reference the TI-16 APB-15 vice TI-14 APB-13 test procedures

19 Baseline Reference Attachment 2, Appendix A, Page A-9;

Paragraph 5.1

Is the reference to receiving TI-14/APB-13 IETMs as GFI an incorrect reference? We believe the correct reference should be either the TI-14/APB-15 or TI-16/APB-15 IETMs for use in TI-16/APB-17.

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 5.1 has been updated to reference the TI-16/APB-15 vice TI-

14 APB-13 ITEM as documented in the GFI list.

20 Alternate ASuW RFP; Section L 2.0.5.1, Page 130; Paragraph

1.1.1

The ADCAP Spiral 4 torpedo currently provides Target Class as a prelaunch preset in the Weapon Settings –

Preset 2 data block. Does “expandable and updatable so the weapon could change tactics at any time” mean that there is a desire to modify the Target Class value when the ADCAP is in a post launch state? Or will

Target Class continue to be output to the weapon in a prelaunch state only?

The is no RFP Section L change for the Capability

Improvement requirements. Target Class could be an updatable field. Assume the communications to the payload are handled separately and are able to transfer data back and forth (2-way interface).

21 Submarine Launched UUV RFP; Section L 2.0.5.1, Page 130; Page 1.1.1 Relative to “is able to communicate with SCCS via existing launchers and payload hardware”, if the desire is for post launch communications with the ASM-X through existing launchers, wire guide commands and

TELCOM read backs are the only post launch communication vehicles supported by existing launchers and payload hardware. The TELCOM read back is a fixed buffer specific to ADCAP and may not provide the desired information requested from the ASM-X. Please clarify the desired prelaunch and post launch information that is requested from the ASM-X or provide GFI on ASM-X capabilities.

With a range up to 200 km for ASM-X, a post launch wire guide capability is not anticipated. Is this a correct assumption?

The is no RFP Section L change for the Capability

Improvement requirements. Yes, the wireguide is not assumed to reach 200km. Focus on the PCS perspective for the interfaces. Assume the communications to the payload are handled separately and are able to transfer data back and forth (2-way interface).

22 Reference to TMCR NDMS-

090092-000

Sec 5.1 of SOW Appendix A, page A-9 (and in the other SOW appendices).

TMCR No. NDMS-090092-000 does not appear to have been provided in the AIMTEC reading room, it is not on the GFI list (attachment 3) and we cannot currently locate a copy. Please provide a copy if it is necessary to propose and execute the IETM effort.

Attachment 2 - SOW Section 2.1 has been updated to include the TMCR document details. Also SOW

Appendix A, Section 5.1 has been updated to reword the reference of the TMCR document. CDRL

A029 INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL

MANUAL (IETM) has been updated for the required sections of the TMCR. The GFI has been updated to include the TMCR document. The TMCR document will be provided to the eTIC.

23 Key personnel RFP page 140- Sections 2.1.4 and 4.3., Key personnel

The Logistics manager is designated as a key person by the Navy in Section 4.3. In Section 2.1.4. “To be considered “Key”, an employee must be dedicated to this contract at least 50-percent of the time.” The ILS scope of this contract is very limited and is mainly to provide source material for BYG-1 IETM updates, Ready reference manuals and OD 44979 procedures. A notional PCS TI 16/APB 17 development schedule would not require any significant ILS management involvement until probably CDR or almost two years into the contract. It is difficult to justify and fund an ILS manager at least 50% of the time for this contract with the limited scope and overall development lead time to get to the first supported delivery. In the previous draft

RFP of April 2014, the Navy had designated the T&E lead as a key person. We believe designating a T&E manager as key person remains appropriate as it is a very important aspect of a robust PCS program. A T&E lead should be considered as a key person vice the ILS manager.

The RFP has been updated for Section L 4.3 and

Attachment 9 to remove the Logistics manager as a

Key Personnel.

24 TI-16/APB-17 Schedule Attachment 2 SOW Appendix A, Page A-1, first paragraph

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

PMS425 Integrated Master Plan provides dates for (V)6 and (V)1. Can the Navy clarify the expected delivery of (V) 2,8 and 9? Will all four variants complete DRR within the 3 year period of performance portrayed on page 4 of the SOW (Attachment 2)?

The TI-16 Integrated Master Plan has been updated for the current applicable variants' schedules. The

Attachment 2 - SOW Section 2.1 Applicable documents and Attachment 3 - GFI have been updated with the updated TI-16 IMP document details. The updated TI-16 IMP will be provided to the eTIC. The Attachment 2 - SOW Section 1.4

Figure has been updated with the applicable variants which removed (V)2 matching the updated

TI-16 IMP.

25 eTIC Classified Documents NA Will the Government provide the classified interface documents on the E-TIC? There are no RFP, GFI, and eTIC updates for classified interface documents. Additional classified interfaced documents will not be provided. If there is a request for additional information, then provide the specific document request and additional questions.

26 Submarine Launched UUV RFP Section L 2.0.5.1 Volume I – TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL, 1.1.1 Design – Capability

Improvements (pg. 130 of 183)

Will the Government provide interface/descriptive documents on the ASuW homing capability for the submarine-launched MK-48 Mod 7 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) and the Submarine launched UUV?

The are no RFP, GFI, and eTIC updates for the ASuW

Capability Improvement requirements. If there is a request for additional information, then provide the specific document request and additional questions.

27 Facility Attachment 2 SOW Appendix A, Page A-10,

6.1 HSIT

Will the Government confirm its intention to facilitize the NUWC test facility with each of the ten variants referred to in the SOW? Can the Government also confirm the rent-free availability of this site to include support staff?

There are no RFP changes for the NUWC facility and personnel. Refer to RFP, Section L 1.1.4 Test and

Evaluation and L 2.1.5 for Facilities regarding test facility, equipment, and approach. Offeror can propose use of the rent-free NUWC test facility and equipment in proposal.

28 TI-16/APB-17 Schedule Solicitation Section F “Delivery Information”

(pages 57 and 58); Attachment 2 for the

“Statement of Work (SOW) for the Submarine

PCS” (pages 3, 4 and 5), the “Example of PCS

Variants and Estimated Demand” chart at the top of page 4 and “Example of PCS TI-16/APB-

17, Architecture and LOE Efforts” at the top of page 5; GFI provided TI16 (Integrated Master

Plan) IMP.

Section F Delivery Information dates are inconsistent with the Attachment 2 SOW and the TI16 IMP. Please confirm that the Attachment 2 and TI 16 IMP dates are correct with a Clin 0005 and 0007 PoP of 10/1/2015 through 9/30/2018 and a Clin 0010

PoP of 10/1/2015 through 3/31/2018. Will the Government be updating Section F of the solicitation?

The Attachment 2 - SOW Section 2.1 Applicable documents and Attachment 3 - GFI have been updated with the updated TI-16 IMP document details. The updated TI-16 IMP will be provided to the eTIC. Also, the RFP Section F has been updated for the Delivery Dates information for the applicable

CLIN.

29 Architecture SOW Appendix E, E-1, Introduction Paragraph

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

Can the Navy verify that the intent of the SOW is that development and delivery of the PCS architecture must be completed under the base contract and that an incremental insertion of the architecture is not compliant with the requirements of the RFP? (Incremental insertion here is defined as incrementally adding capability of the new architecture across the CLINs 0005, 0105, 0205.)

If yes, it is compliant within the parameters of the SOW to complete non-architecture components in CLINs

0105 and 0205?

There are no RFP and SOW changes for the TI-16 /

APB-17 and Architecture schedule requirements.

The PCS architecture will be completed as part of TI-

16 APB-17 product development and delivery (CLINs

0005 and 0010).

30 PCS Performance Specification PSPEC, 27, 3.1.2.2.4

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

We are unable to find a reference document for CSA interface requirements. Have the CSA interface requirements for PCS been specified in the final RFP documentation? If so, where are these requirements specified?

Attachment 3 - GFI list has been updated to include the CSA interface requirements document. The

PSPEC will be updated at Contract Award with the

Section 2 Applicable Documents updated as applicable. The CSA interface requirements document will be provided as part of the eTIC.

31 PCS Performance Specification PSPEC, 23, 3.1.2.2.1.1

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

We are unable to find the TCSG whitepaper called out in the “Applicable Documents” section of the PSPEC.

Can the Navy provide clarification on this document? Where in the final RFP is this information provided?

There are no RFP, eTIC, and PSPEC updates for the

TCSG Whitepaper. The PCS PSPEC will be updated at

Contract Award with the updated Section 3.1.2.2.1.2 to remove the following requirement: "PCS shall support the TLAM Strike Planning and execution improvements outlined in the Tactical Concept of

Operations Support Group (TCSG) White Paper" .

The TCSG Whitepaper will not be provide as part of the eTIC.

32 PCS Performance Specification SOW, A-5, 1.5.3.4

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

Refers to VPM. We were unable to find requirements in the SOW or PSPEC that provide details of the scope required by the above “shall” in the SOW. Where in the RFP documentation are they located?

Attachment 2 - SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 1.5.3.5 for VPM has been removed.

33 Capability Improvements SOW, D-1, Introduction

(Contract Section; Page Number; Paragraph

Number)

The Navy has stated that all CI requirements for TI-16/APB-17, TI-18/APB-17, and TI-18/APB-19 have been re-allocated to Appendix D of the SOW yet there are no specific requirements stated. Where in the RFP documentation are the requirements that should be considered for these CIs?

There is no RFP changes for the Capability

Improvements requirements. The specific TI/APB

Capability Improvements are not identified and defined at this time since they are future capabilities. Therefore, there are no requirements.

This effort is part of Engineering Services, Level of

Effort, type work and will be handled via Technical

Instructions and negotiated as stated in Attachment

2 - SOW Appendix D.

34 General Solicitation

Requirements

RFP Page 125 of 183, Section L 1.2 General

Solicitation Requirements, L2.0.5.4.1 page

Can the Government require the EVMS Plan be delivered within the supplemental volume in L.2.0.5.4

Supplemental Information on page 139 of 183?

Can the Government permit the submission of RFP Sections A-K as referred to in Section L.1.2 solely in the cost volume as per section L2.0.5.4.1 Chapter 1.0 – RFP Package?

Is the Government’s intent to include a copy of the cover letter (with Standard Form 33) within each individual volume?

RFP Section L 2.0.5.5 has been updated to require the Cover Letter with SF 33, RFP Sections A - K, and

EVMS plan as part of the Cost/Price Volume.