Amendment_0001_-_Q A_1-17.pdf

N00024-15-R-6406 BIDDER’S QUESTION & GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Question #1

Date: 1/28/2016

Topic: Cost summaries

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, 3.2.1.1 & 3.1.5.1

Question:

Section 3.2.1.1 of Section L requires offerors to submit cost summaries for all CLINs except

FFP CLINS in the Cost Volume. Section 3.1.5.1 of Section L requires BOE’s in the Technical

Volume, without specifying CLIN applicability. Should Section 3.2.1.1 and 3.1.5.1 of Section

L apply to all CLINs except COST only and FFP CLINs for both the Cost and Technical

Volumes?

Response:

Offerors shall provide Cost/Price summaries for all CLINs except for FFP and COST Only

CLINs. Section 3.2.1.1 and Section 3.1.5.1apply to all CLINs except FFP and COST Only

CLINs.

The solicitation has been updated accordingly.

Question #2

Date: 1/28/2016

Topic: Cost data

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, 3.2.2

Question:

Section 3.2.2 of Section L requires offerors to submit supporting cost data in the Cost Volume for COST and CPFF CLINs only, with the exception of section 3.2.2.9, which requires a staffing plan and Key Personnel Table (L-1) for the FPI CLINs. Should Section 3.2.2 apply to all CLINs except FFP and Cost only CLINs?

All of Section 3.2.2 applies only to all CPFF CLINs with the exception of Section 3.2.2.9, which applies only to all FPI CLINs.

The solicitation has been updated accordingly.

QUESTION #3

Topic: Warranty Clause

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section B, Note F

Question:

Note F of Section B of the RFP (p.35) and the CLIN Description for CLINs 0011, 0014, 0111, 0114, 0211, 0214, 0311, 0314, 0411 and 0414 in Section C of the RFP (p. 46), as well as

Section F (p. 105) reference "the warranty provisions of this contract as specified in Section I."

Please provide the referenced warranty provision.

The RFP is amended to add 52.246-18 WARRANTY OF SUPPLIES OF A COMPLEX

NAUTRE (MAY 2001)(NAVSEA VARIATION)(MAY 1993) to Section I.

QUESTION #4

Topic: Proposal validity period

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, Clause 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS – COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004)

Question:

Section L (p. 170) Clause 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMPETITIVE

ACQUISITION (JAN 2004) – Section (8)(d) Offer expiration date. This clause requires proposals to be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet. The solicitation cover sheet Section 12 is silent with regard to offer validity period, leading offerors to the default period of 60 days from proposal submission date. Please confirm that 60 days is the correct proposal validity period.

52.215-1, 8(d) states that “Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet (unless a different period is proposed by the offeror).”

However, Section L, 3.3 Volume III: Solicitation Package, Section 1 – Cover Letter, c), states that Offerors must qualify that the proposal is valid for a period of two-hundred-seventy (270) days. Therefore, Offerors should propose a proposal validity period of 270 days on both Block

12 of the Cover Sheet and in the proposal Cover Letter as required by Section L, 3.3.

QUESTION #5

Topic: Cyber Security Clauses

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section I, DFARS clause 252.204-7008

Question:

Per the instructions of the Defense Procurement and Defense Policy; will there be a revision to

Section I, Page 132 to replace the DFARS clause 252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH

SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION CONTROLS (OCT 2015) with the latest DFARS clause 252.204-7008 revision at award?

The RFP is amended to:

a) replace 252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED

DEFENSE INFORMATION CONTROLS (DEVIATION 2016-O0001)(OCT 2015)

with 252.204-7008 COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE

INFORMATION CONTROLS (DEC 2015);

b) add 252.204-7009 LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THIRD-

PARTY CONTRACTOR REPORTED CYBER INCIDENT INFORMATION (DEC

2015); and

c) replace 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION

AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING (DEVIATION 2016-O0001)(OCT 2015) with

252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND

CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING (DEC 2015).

QUESTION #6

Date: 1/28/2016

Topic: Technical Data Package (TDP)

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406

Questions about Missing Drawings or Specifications in the Technical Data Package (TDP)

Per solicitation requirements, Offerors are directed to submit a TDP request to receive the most recent and updated TDP. Any questions pertaining to the TDP (drawings, specifications, etc.)

should be based on the most current version.

Table 1: TDP Questions below shows questions received by the Government about part numbers/drawings as well as the responses to those questions.

Table 1: TDP Questions

Part Number/Drawing Government Response

2502501 - PLUG (Missing)

Part Number 2502501 does not exist in the Government Baseline. The Government believes that industry meant to reference 2502801. This drawing does exist, please See the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\SCV Kit\PDFs\2502801_10001_FN_01_G_1.pdf

2526680 - Ring, Retaining (Called out on drawing 7608757) (Missing)

This drawing does exist. Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\Exercise Fuel Tank Kit\Contract Baseline\PDFs\2526680_10001_fn_1_m_1.pdf

2526705 - Holder Cylinder (Called out on drawing 8226660)(Missing)

Part Number 2526705 is a MK46 cylinder holder and is not required for this contract or manufacture. Drawing 8226660 has been replaced with 8290680 for new manufacture.

Drawing 8226660 has been replaced with 8290680 for new manufacture. Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406.

15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\Exercise Fuel Tank Kit\Contract Baseline\PDFs\8290680_53711_FN_1_-_1.pdf

8210785 - PGA CIPS (Missing) This drawing is INACTIVE for new procurement.

8210788 - IMU CIPS (Missing) This drawing is INACTIVE for new procurement.

8595283 - CGA SSS (Missing)

This drawing does exist. Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\CGA\Contract Baseline\PDFs\8595283_53711_-_all.pdf, 8595284 - CGA TRD (Missing)

This drawing does exist. Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\CGA\Contract Baseline\PDFs\8595284_53711_-_all.pdf

8595331 - Drawing labeled draft (will not open)

Current version of 8595331 is now at Rev "-".

Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\8595331_53711_- _all.pdf

PL7085257 - PL for Fuel Tank Assembly, Long (Missing)

This drawing does exist. Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\Warshot Fuel Tank Shell\GFI\PDFs\PL7085257_G_ALL.pdf

PL7085258 - PL for Fuel Tank Assembly, Short (Missing)

This drawing does exist. Please see the following location(s):” MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406.

15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\Exercise Fuel Tank Kit\Contract Baseline\PDFs\PL7085258_H_ALL.pdf

The CIC Module Boundary Scan Test Station (CMBTS) is referenced as a test tool, but it is not listed on the GFE list. Will a CMBTS (8325586) be provided as GFE?

No, this item will not be provided as GFE.

However, the TDP for this drawing does exist,.

Please see the following location(s): MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Common Parts Kits RFP Competition Library Prepared for Solicitation N00024-15-R6406. 15350001 of 21 December 2015 (U) Att 1 Contract Baseline\PGA\GFI\PGA PDFs\8325586_a_all.pdf

QUESTION #7

Topic: Technical Data Package

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406

Question:

Pre-solicitation N00024-16-R-6403 announced a sole source end of life procurement of DP and

SP chips from Raytheon. These chips support MK54 LWT common parts kits Circuit Card

Assemblies referenced in the Technical Data Package. Please explain the government's intended use for these chips? Does the government plan to provide these chips as GFE to the winning MK54 common parts kits (N00024-15-R-6406) bidder as needed?

The Government authorized an End-of-Life Type Buy procurement for components used in the manufacturing of the MK54 Lightweight Torpedo Digital Processor (DP) and Signal Processor

(SP) circuit card assemblies from GE Intelligent Platforms.

The Government’s intended use of the DP & SP components procured is to provide the components as Government Furnished Equipment during contract execution to the selected

Offeror for use in DP & SP manufacturing and assembly of the PGA.

Attachment 4 – Government Furnished Equipment has been updated accordingly.

QUESTION #8

Topic: First Article Testing Clauses

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section I, FAR 52.209-3 and 52.209

Question:

FAR 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 First Article Testing clauses, Section I pages 116-118 both refer to

Alternate I and Alternate II, yet the text of the clauses in the RFP does not include the Alternate

II language for paragraphs (g) and (h) respectively.

Specifically, Alternate II replaces paragraphs (g) and (h) respectively, which state ""Before first article approval, the acquisition of materials or components for, or the commencement of production of, the balance of the contract quantity is at the sole risk of the Contractor. Before first article approval, the costs thereof shall not be allocable to this contract for (1) progress payments, or (2) termination settlements if the contract is terminated for the convenience of the

Government."", with the following language: (g//h) Before first article approval, the

Contracting Officer may, by written authorization, authorize the contractor to acquire specific materials or components or to commence production to the extent essential to meet the delivery schedules. Until first article approval is granted, only costs for the first article and costs incurred under this authorization are allocable to this contract for (1) progress payments, or (2) termination settlements if the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government. If first article tests reveal deviations from contract requirements, the Contractor shall, at the location designated by the Government, make the required changes or replace all items produced under this contract at no change in the contract price.

Is it the Government's intent to include 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 Alternate II language in both clauses?

The RFP is amended to replace:

a) 52.209-3 -- First Article Approval -- Contractor Testing paragraph (g) with 52.209-3 --

First Article Approval -- Contractor Testing Alternate II paragraph (g).

b) 52.209-4 -- First Article Approval -- Government Testing paragraph (h) with 52.209-4 -

- First Article Approval -- Government Testing Alternate II paragraph (h).

QUESTION #9

Topic: NAVSEA Warranty Clause

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section D, Clause HQ D-1-0007

Question:

RFP Section D, Page 95, Clause HQ D-1-0007 WARRANTY NOTIFICATION FOR ITEM(S)

- ALTERNATE I (NAVSEA) (APR 2015) (APPLICABLE TO ITEMS (IF OPTIONS

EXERCISED) 0010, 0110, 0210, 0310 and 0410) requires specific warranty markings for the

CLIN 0010 Exercise Fuel Tanks (and affiliated out year option CLINs). There is no warranty provision associated with the Exercise Fuel Tank CLIN. Should this clause be removed, or is this clause citing incorrect CLINs?

Answer:

The RFP is amended to change Section D clause from HQ D-1-0007 WARRANTY

NOTIFICATION FOR ITEM(S) - ALTERNATE I (NAVSEA) (APR 2015) (APPLICABLE

TO ITEMS (IF OPTIONS EXERCISED) 0010, 0110, 0210, 0310 and 0410) to HQ D-1-0007

WARRANTY NOTIFICATION FOR ITEM(S) - ALTERNATE I (NAVSEA) (APR 2015)

(APPLICABLE TO ITEMS 0003, 0004 (IF OPTIONS EXERCISED) 0103, 0104, 0203, 0204,

0303, 0304, 0403 and 0404).

QUESTION #10

Topic: Subcontractor

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, 3.1.2.7

Question:

In response to Section L paragraph 3.1.2.7, as well as 3.1.4 and 3.2.1.2 should offerors interpret

"subcontracting/subcontractor" as any supplier/vendor/teammate that is planned to receive a purchase order with a statement of work under a resultant contract? Can you please clarify the use of the term "subcontractor" in the RFP?

The RFP is amended to add language stating “major subcontractor (subcontracts of $1,000,000 or more per year, or ten percent (10%) of the total contract price, whichever is less (hereinafter all such firms are referred to as “major subcontractors”))” to Section L paragraph 3.1.2.7.

QUESTION #11

Topic: NAVSEA Clause

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section C, Clause HQ C-2-0037

Question:

Section C Page 87, Clause HQ C-2-0037 ORGANIZATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(NAVSEA) (JUL 2000) paragraph (e ) prohibits the contractor from furnishing any system, component or services which are the subject of the work to be performed under the resultant contract during performance of the contract and for 3 years after completion of the contract.

Please provide the authority for this three year restriction on any system, component or service which is the subject of the work to be performed. Can you please clarify the applicability of this clause, and specifically the intent of paragraph (e) regarding the offeror's ability to provide systems, components or services which are the subject of the work to be performed under the contract to the government for a period of three years after completion of the contract? For example, does this restriction apply to any systems, components or services previously developed or previously sold or offered for sale by the bidding party and planned to be included by the bidding party in the work to be performed under this contract? The FY11 RFP did not contain this clause.

This clause was inadvertently included and has been removed.

The solicitation has been amended accordingly.

QUESTION #12

Topic: CDRL

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section C, 3.3.6.3.1 & 3.3.6.3.3

Question:

Section C paragraph 3.3.6.3.1 (RFP Page 74) states "The Contractor shall document any failure, deficiency, or non-conformance that is identified during the inspection and testing of all hardware deliverables in accordance with CDRL A004 - Failure Reporting, Analysis and

Corrective Action (FRACA) Report - Failures Prior to Factory Acceptance. . .". Section C paragraph 3.3.6.3.3 (RFP Page 74) states "The Contractor shall document and submit a FRACA

Report for any pre-FAT and HASS non-conformances in accordance with CDRL A005."

Exhibit A CDRL A004 is for "Failures During HASS Testing and Pre-FAT". while CDRL

A005 is for "Failures during FAT, POM, 1st Article, Government Testing and Warranty.

Should paragraph 3.3.6.3.3 refer to CDRL A004 in lieu of A005? Please amend the RFP

Section C accordingly.

The RFP is amended to change “CDRL A005 “ to “CDRL A004” in Section 3.3.6.3.3 Pre-

Factory Acceptance Test and HASS Failures of Section C.

QUESTION #13

Topic: Systems Engineering Approach

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, 3.1.1.1, and Section M, 3.1.1.1

Section L 3.1.1.1 (RFP Page 186) and Section M 3.1.1.1 (RFP Page 22), require an engineering reliability approach to demonstrate compliance to performance specs and applicable drawings.

Reliability is a subset of performance requirements. Is it the government's intent for offerors to exclusively discuss their Reliability approach, or is it the government's intent for offerors to discuss how their designs are compliant to all performance specifications and applicable drawings including, but not limited to Reliability.

It is the Government’s intent that the Offerors include a Systems Engineering Approach that includes how they will ensure that their designs are compliant to performance specifications and applicable drawings, and in addition their approach to reliability as part of the overall

Systems Engineering Approach.

Section 3.1.1.1 of Section L is amended to change “The Offeror shall describe an engineering reliability approach to demonstrate that the designs are compliant to performance specifications and applicable drawings” to “The Offeror shall describe a system engineering approach that ensures the designs are compliant to performance specifications and applicable drawings. The

Offeror shall include an approach on how they will achieve reliability objectives”.

Section 3.1.1.1 of Section M is amended to change “An engineering reliability approach to demonstrate that the design is compliant to performance specifications and other requirements of the solicitation” to “A systems engineering approach, including reliability, to demonstrate that the design is compliant to performance specifications and other requirements of the solicitation”.

QUESTION #14

Topic: Cable Performance Specification

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section C, 3.3.9.15 & Section L, 3.1.1.5

Question:

Section C Page 79 paragraph 3.3.9.15 and the Cable performance specifications do not require

HASS on the W4. Section L paragraph 3.1.1.5 Page 189 is requesting our plan on performing

HASS on the W4 Cable. Is 100% HASS required for the W4? Please either amend the RFP

Section C and the Cable Performance specification or RFP Section L accordingly.

The RFP is amended to remove “W4 Cables” from Section 3.1.1.5 of Section L.

QUESTION #15

Topic: Risk

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section L, 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.3

Question:

Section L paragraph 3.1.2.1 Program Management Plan (PMP) requires "The WBS shall include at a minimum 3 levels where the Offeror identifies risk associated with technical issues or resources and identify control plans whether or not the items are reported back to the

Government." In addition, Section L paragraph 3.1.2.3 Risk Management requires the offeror to identify what are considered to be at least five of the greatest risks, and provide a mitigation approach for each in accordance with Section C 3.3.1.3." It is unclear whether the risks required by 3.1.2.1 are a superset or identical to those required by 3.1.2.3. Can the government please clarify the apparently duplicative requirements of these two sections, or explain how they are different?

The risks required in Section 3.1.2.1 of Section L refer to risks identified within the required

WBS. The risks required in Section 3.1.2.3 of Section L refer to overall risks associated with contract performance which may or may not be the same risks identified in Section 3.1.2.1.

Section 3.1.2.3 of Section L, in addition, requires the Offeror to identify at least 5 risks that the

Offeror considers to be the greatest risk to contract performance.

QUESTION #16

Topic: Cyber Security Clause

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section I, DFAR 252.204-7012

Question:

As the definition of Covered Defense Information in DFAR 252.204-7012 is very broad, and the clause imposes immediate compliance, the impact of this clause vs. the DEC 2015 version is significant. Additionally, the government has not indicated that the DEC 2015 clause will be incorporated into an RFP amendment or the ultimate contract. Therefore, please identify 1) the

CDI anticipated to be furnished by the Government to the Contractor and 2) the CDI anticipated to be collected, developed, received, transmitted, used or stored by or on behalf of the

Contractor in support of its performance under the contract so that offerors may accurately include any associated costs in their proposals.

As stated in the Gov’t response to Question 5 above, the RFP is amended to replace 252.204-

7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT

REPORTING (DEVIATION 2016-O0001)(OCT 2015) with 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING

COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING (DEC

2015).

Covered Defense Information (CDI) is defined by DFAR 252.204-7012 (DEC 2015). The

Offeror should bid according to experience with past contracts of similar nature to determine the CDI that will be furnished by the Government or collected, developed, received, transmitted, used or stored by or on behalf of the Contractor. In addition, the Offeror should bid according to experience with past contracts of similar nature to determine the applicable contractor information systems associated with that CDI that will require the implementation of

NIST SP 800-171 or alternative security measures approved by the DOD CIO.

QUESTION #17

Topic: Cost evaluation examples

RFP

Reference:

N00024-15-R-6406, Section M, 3.3.3 & 3.3.6

Question:

Section M paragraph 3.3.3 and 3.3.6 has examples listed for the Government calculation of the

GTEP that include a Step 3, which is to add the offered fee amount to the total calculated in

Step 2. However, there are only 2 Steps listed above, and it states to use the fully burdened labor rate (including fee) in Step 1 of 3.3.3. Also, Section L 3.2.1.1.3 and 3.2.1.1.6 state that each CLIN shall be proposed using the fully burdened labor rates (including fee). Section M

3.3.6 Step 1 does not state fully burdened labor rates (including fee). Should Step 1 of Section

M 3.3.6 state fully burdened labor rates (including fee)? Should these examples in Section M paragraph 3.3.3 and 3.3.6 remove Step 3?

Step 1 of Section M paragraph 3.3.6 will use the fully burdened labor rates (including fee) to calculate the GTEP. The examples in both 3.3.3 and 3.3.6 of Section M have removed Step 3 and corrected the total that is used to calculate the GTEP in each example.

The solicitation has been updated accordingly.