Attachment_2_-Bidders_Question_response_3.pdf

DATE QUESTION NO. RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary) QUESTION Government's Answers

12/9/2014 1 In RFP section B, CLINs 0006 (ISM Design (CDR) (Surface) ) and 0007 (ISM Design (CDR) (Submarine) ) are designated as Options. In RFP Section F, the delivery dates for these CLINs are specified as

"ADC" (After Date of Contract), indicating they are part of the base contract, rather than "ADOE"

(After Date of Option Exercise), as with all of the other options.

Are CLINs 0006 and 0007 part of the base contract, or are they options? If they are Options, can Section F be revised to reflect ADOE delivery dates?

Yes, Section F will be revised to reflect ADOE delivery dates

12/9/2014 2 RFP section B. CLINs 0006 and 0007 are separately priced options for "ISM Design (CDR) (Surface) " and "ISM Design (CDR) (Submarine). " For each CLIN, "The Contractor shall complete all the tasks necessary to achieve a successful CDR IAW paragraph 3.2.14.2 of the SOW ." The ISM design effort includes many tasks which apply to both the Surface and Submarine variants. For example, "the

IMUs shall be designed to be identical " for both configurations, per RFP section C, subsection 3.2.1.

This creates an issue with how to apportion the pricing for common tasks to these CLINs, particularly if only one of these options is awarded.

So that the scope of work priced for each of these

CLINs is consistent, complete, and correct for all

Offerors, please resolve this issue. We suggest creating a separate CLIN for "ISM Design (CDR)

(Common)," for pricing of the CDR design tasks common to both configurations.

The Government will not add a "common" CLIN.

12/9/2014 3 RFP section B, clause HQ B-2-0012 PAYMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AND SUPPORT (NAVSEA)

(JAN 2008), and RFP section G, clause HQ G-2-0009 SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING

ELECTRONIC INVOICING (NAVSEA) (SEP 2012). Both of these clauses specify invoicing and payment procedures using the Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) system. The WAWF system has recently been updated, and is now designated as the Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance & Property Transfer (iRAPT) system.

Will this change affect invoicing and payment procedures for the INS-R ISM program?

Payment procedures remain unchanged at this time.

12/9/2014 4 RFP section C, subsection 3.2.4 (Technical Data Package). "During development and testing, the

Contractor shall maintain the TDP at the developmental level as defined by MIL-STD-31000A. Prior to, and in preparation for, PRR, the Contractor shall maintain the TDP at the Production level as defined by MIL-STD-31000A. The TDP shall contain, but not be limited to, Level 3 drawings …." The term "Level 3" is not used or defined in MIL-STD-31000A. That term was used in the now-cancelled

DOD-STD-100, as an equivalent for what is now called "Production" level in MIL-STD-31000A.

For clarity and consistency with MIL-STD-31000A, please delete "Level 3" from the TDP requirements.

The Government will delete Level 3 from the TDP requirements and replace it with production level requirements. The SOW and TDP will be revised accordingly.

12/9/2014 5 RFP Section C, paragraph 3.2.7.4 (Environmental Qualification Testing (EQT)). States that "EQT will be conducted, by the TDA at a Government approved test facility." Contractor participation is limited to "engineering and technical support ," such as "input to Government EQT plans " per CDRL

A028. Other sections of the RFP appear to be somewhat in conflict with this section with respect to

Contractor EQT scope:

● HQ C-2-0027 FIRST ARTICLE (GOVERNMENT TESTING) (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990) states that the

Contractor is required to have "fully tested " the first article PPU, which would typically include EQT.

● RFP section L.4.2 (VOLUME II: Technical). The requirements for section I of the Technical volume list "E nvironmental qualification testing " as part of the contractor ISM test program.

Please clarify the scope of work for Contractor EQT. Section HQ C-2-0027 and RFP Section L.4.2 are correct and require the contractor to have a fully tested Pre

Production Unit (PPU) to a factory acceptance level, not to an EQT level. The Section C paragraph 3.2.7.4 is correct, after delivery of the PPU the government will conduct EQT testing with engineering and technical support from the contractor.

INS-R ISM Solicitation N00024-15-R-5226 Questions

12/9/2014 6 RFP section C, CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. In accordance with FAR 52.252-2, please provide the full text of the two NAVSEA clauses incorporated by reference in RFP Section C, or provide an online address at which they can be accessed.

Section C clauses will be incorporated by full text in the Solicitation Amendment.

12/9/2014 9 RFP section L.1.6 (PROPOSAL PACKING INSTRUCTIONS). "Boxes must be able to fit into security scanner ."

What are the maximum box dimensions that the security scanner will support?

Offeror's should submit proposals in "bankers boxes" the size of the binders.

12/9/2014 10 RFP section L.2.0 (CONTENTS OF THE OFFER). "Offerors shall submit hard and electronic copies of its

Inertial Navigation System (INS-R) Inertial Sensor Module (ISM) Design Approach, INS-R ISM

Production Capability and Approach, Lifecycle Support Approach, Past Performance, Cost and

Supplemental Information Volumes ." This list of proposal volumes does not match the volumes listed and described everywhere else in Section L, such as in Section L.3.1.

To eliminate this conflict in the RFP requirements, please delete this sentence from RFP section 2.0.

"Offerors shall submit hard and electronic copies of its Inertial Navigation System (INS-R) Inertial Sensor

Module (ISM) Design Approach, INS-R ISM Production

Capability and Approach, Lifecycle Support Approach, Past Performance, Cost and Supplemental

Information Volumes. Offerors should note the requirement to distribute questionnaires and notify the contracting office of Past Performance references prior to the closing date of this solicitation. See 3.1 below. " will be removed from Section L.2

12/9/2014 11 RFP section L.2.0 (CONTENTS OF THE OFFER). "Offerors should note the requirement to distribute questionnaires and notify the contracting office of Past Performance references prior to the closing date of this solicitation. See 3.1 below. " Section L.3.1 contains no instructions concerning distribution of questionnaires to the offeror's Past Performance references, and the RFP package does not contain a questionnaire form. Section L.4.3 (VOLUME III: Past Performance) also contains no instructions concerning questionnaires to be filled out and submitted by the offeror's Past

Performance references.

To eliminate this conflict in the RFP requirements, please either delete this requirement from RFP section

L.2.0, or modify all applicable areas of the solicitation to provide questionnaire forms, and instructions for their completion and submittal by the offeror's Past

Performance references.

deleted from section L.2. See question 10 response.

12/9/2014 14 RFP section L.3.1 (Solicitation Response Requirements). "The narrative material in the written and cost volumes of the Offerors proposal shall be typed or printed in a font with the type no smaller than size 12 Times New Roman font on standard 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper. Text line spacing shall be

1.5 lines. One-inch margins on each side, including top and bottom are required. Text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material may use 8-point font ."

A) Please confirm that Times New Roman font is required only for "narrative material ," and is not required for "text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material ." Sans-serif fonts (such as

Arial) are typically used for diagrams and graphics, for enhanced clarity and readability.

B) Please confirm that 1.5 line spacing is required only for "narrative material ," and is not required for "text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material ."

Times New Roman font and 1.5 line spacing is required only for narrative material.

12/9/2014 15 RFP section L.3.1 (Solicitation Response Requirements). "No cost or pricing proposal information shall be included in the Offeror's forwarding letter or in any part of its submitted volumes, except the Cost Volume IV ." This requirement conflicts with RFP section L.4.1 (VOLUME I:

Offer/Administrative, which states, "NO COST INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN ANY VOLUME

OTHER THAN VOLUMES I AND IV ," and requires pricing information to be included in Volume I section (4) (SECTION B - TABLES B1-B4).

To eliminate this conflict in the RFP requirements, please delete this sentence from RFP section L.3.1.

Section L.4.1 will be revised as follows: "NO COST

INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN ANY

VOLUME OTHER THAN VOLUME IV". L.4.1 (4) will be marked "RESERVED".

12/9/2014 16 RFP section L.4.1 (VOLUME I: Offer/Administrative). Among the content requirements for this volume are:

"(11) One complete unclassified copy of proposal in .pdf format.

(12) One complete copy of classified annex in .pdf format (if required) ."

A) Shall the PDF of the classified annex be provided on the same CD-ROM as the rest of Volume I, or on a separate CD? If this file is on the same CD, the Volume

I CD will have to be controlled and distributed as a classified item. We are unsure if that was the

Government's intent, given the requirement that all classified material shall be kept separate from the rest of the proposal in an annex.

B) Please confirm that the PDF files of the other proposal volumes and the classified annex are not required to be printed in the hard-copy version of

Volume I.

A) Please provide the classified annex on a separate

CD-ROM from the rest of Volume I. B) PDF files of the other proposal volumes and the classified annex are not required to be printed in the hard copy version of

Volume I.

12/9/2014 18 RFP section L.4.2 (VOLUME II: Technical). FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach. Section G. "Details and approaches to satisfy the requirements of the SOW and the delivery schedule detailed in Section F.

Information should be provided in MS Project format and include EDM and PPUs schedule details to support the manufacturing, engineering, and production ." The first sentence states that that the offeror's schedule shall cover "the delivery schedule detailed in Section F ," which includes all CLINs through LRIP and full-rate production. The second sentence lists only "EDM and PPUs schedule details " as requirements.

Please confirm that the schedule to be provided by the offeror in Volume II Section G shall include all CLINs.

The schedule to be provided by the offeror in Volume

II Section G shall be limited to EDM and PPUs. The solicitation will be modified to reflect this change.

12/9/2014 19 RFP section L.4.2 (VOLUME II: Technical). FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach. Section G. "Details and approaches to satisfy the requirements of the SOW and the delivery schedule detailed in Section F.

Information should be provided in MS Project format and include EDM and PPUs schedule details to support the manufacturing, engineering, and production ." It is unclear whether the MS Project schedule file is considered an "attachment" exempt from the page count in accordance with RFP section L.3.1. (See question no. 12 above.)

Please confirm that the MS Project schedule is considered a non-page-limited attachment, for the following reasons:

● The MS Project schedule must be a separate file from the rest of the volume, in its own unique file format (.mpp).

● Eliminating the page limits for the schedule would provide the space needed for hard-copy printing of the information in the MS Project file in multiple formats

(Gantt chart, critical path, etc.), to facilitate the

Government's evaluation of the program execution approach.

Yes, the MS Project schedule is considered a non page limited attachment.

12/9/2014 20 RFP section L.4.2 (VOLUME II: Technical). FACTOR 2 - Data Rights. Subsection A requires a "a consolidated table in response to DFARS 252-227-7013, 7014, 7017 and 7028 ." Subsection B requires that the responses to these DFARS requirements consist of separate, individual lists (such as "The 7017 List ").

Please clarify the format of the Data Rights section.

Shall the tables be separate or consolidated?

The tables shall be consolidated.

12/9/2014 21 RFP section L.4.3 (VOLUME III: Past Performance). "Offerors shall attach the most recent

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each Relevant

Experience identified. " This requirement appears to be somewhat inconsistent with RFP

Attachment 4 (Relevant Experience Form). The Block 15 instruction on the form states, "Please attach CPARS evaluations for all portions of the past three years on this contract ."

For each Past Performance contract cited, please confirm that offerors shall attach CPARS for the past three years.

Attachment 4 Block 15 will be revised to "Please attach CPARS evaluations, if available".

12/9/2014 22 RFP section L.4.4 (VOLUME IV: Cost Summary). Volume section 1.3 (Staffing Plan). Section title includes the statement "(same as Volume III) ." Volume III is Past Performance, and contains no requirements for staffing information.

Please confirm that the intended reference is to

Volume II, Factor 3, Section G ("Proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix for each Contract Line

Item ").

The intended reference is to Volume II, Factor 3, Section F.

12/9/2014 23 RFP section L.4.4 (VOLUME IV: Cost Summary). Volume section 1.4 (Small Business Subcontracting

Plan). "The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the Clause

HQ L-2-0009 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN and Section L.2.0 Contents of the Offer ."

Volume I is also required to include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Additional RFP instructions for the plan to be included in Volume I are listed in RFP Section L.4.1 (VOLUME I: Offer/

Adminstrative), volume section (8) (SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN).

Please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting

Plans in Volume I and IV shall be identical, and that both the Volume I and Volume IV instructions are applicable to the plan.

Yes, Small Business Subcontracting Plans in Volume I and IV shall be identical, and both the Volume I and

Volume IV instructions are applicable to the plan.

12/9/2014 24 RFP section L.4.4 (VOLUME IV: Cost Summary). Volume section 1.5 (Make or Buy Plan). "The

Offeror shall submit a Make-or-Buy Program Plan in accordance with the Section L, HQ L-2-0004

MAKE-OR-BUY PROGRAM (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990) (MODIFIED) (OCT 2013) ."

The RFP does not include this clause. Please provide. The solicitation will be revised to include Section L, HQ L-2-0004 MAKE-OR-BUY PROGRAM (NAVSEA) (SEP

1990) (MODIFIED) (OCT 2013)

12/9/2014 25 RFP section L, clause HQ L-2-0009 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (NAVSEA) (JUN 1999).

"Offeror shall submit as part of its proposal a written proposed subcontracting plan in accordance with the clause entitled 'SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN' (FAR 52.219-9) ." All other references in the RFP to the requirements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan specify the Alt

II version of FAR 52.219-9, not the standard version cited here. See Sections I, K, L.4.1, and L.4.5 for

Alt II citations.

Please confirm that 52.219-9 Alt II is the applicable FAR requirement for the Small Business Subcontracting

Plan.

52.219-9 Alt II is the applicable FAR requirement for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

12/9/2014 26 RFP section L, clause HQ L-2-0017 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND CMMI OR EQUIVALENT

EXPERIENCE (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006). "Offerors shall submit a description of previous relevant experience, within the past ___ months in developing software of the similar size and complexity as that required under the statement of work. " The number of months is not specified.

Please specify the number of months. The offeror shall provide SW Development and CMMI or equivalent experience for five (5) years or 60 months. The solicitation will be revised accordingly.

12/9/2014 27 RFP Section M.2.1 (RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS). For VOLUME II:

Technical, there appears to be a one-for-one relationship between the subfactor content requirements defined in Section L and the subfactor evaluation criteria defined in Section M.2.1, with two exceptions:

1. Section L Subfactor 3.A ("Identification of schedule and programmatic risk inherent in the proposed Management Approach ...") is omitted from Section M.2.1.

2. Section L Subfactor 3.F ("Proposed allocation of man-hours ...") is omitted from Section M.2.1.

A) Please confirm that Subfactors 3.A and 3.F as specified in Section L will be evaluated by the

Government.

B) In RFP Section M.2.1, please revise "Factor 3:

Management Approach and Control " to add

Subfactors 3.A and 3.F as specified in Section L.

A) Subfactors 3.A and 3.F as specified in Section L will be evaluated by the Government. B) Section M.2.1 will be revised accordingly.

12/12/2014 27 RFP Section 3.2.6.1 "...one EDM Hardware and Software element will be delivered in place to the

Contractor as Government Furnished Material (GFM)"

Please confirm that the contractor shall receive one

Surface EDM and one Submarine EDM as GFM.

Yes (as GFP).

SECOND SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS:

12/12/2014 28 See Question No. 1 from our original submittal. That question asked how to apportion the pricing for work common to the Surface and Submarine configurations for separately priced option CLINs

0006 "ISM Design (CDR) (Surface) " and 0007 "ISM Design (CDR) (Submarine) " The same issue exists for the Surface and Submarine option CLINs for PPU and LRIP production--particularly if an option is awarded for only one of the two configurations. The CDR/PPU/LRIP CLIN structure in its current form is therefore not favorable to the Government, because Offerors would need to include the common design tasks in both CLINs, increasing the Government's cost.

So that the scope of work priced for each of these

CLINs is consistent, complete, and correct for all

Offerors, please resolve this issue. For all Surface and

Submarine CLINs with common tasking for both configurations, we suggest creating a separate CLIN for pricing of the tasks common to both configurations.

We suggest that the Government's approach for resolving this issue also be implemented for the two

EDM CLINs, for clarity and consistency in the pricing approach.

See our response to question 2, the Government will not add a "common" CLIN.

12/12/2014 30 RFP Section C (SOW), Subsection 3.6.4 (Information Assurance). The SOW states to use DoDI 8500.01 and 8500.2 for Information Assurance regulations. DoDI 8500.2 was canceled on 3/14/14 and incorporated into DoDI 8500.1 of the same date; as well as issuing IA guidance to use DoDI 8510.01 for system categorization. As part of this release Mission Assurance Category (MAC) and the accompanying classification levels were replaced with categorizations of low, moderate and high.

Should we continue to use the legacy MAC II Classified and accompanying documentation, or will the SOW be updated to include the new Cybersecurity guidance?

Navy has not implimented the new instruction and date of implimentation has not been determined.

Please use legacy classification.

12/12/2014 31 RFP Section B. Option CLIN 2007, Provisioned Items Order (PIO). Note A ("The CLINs are unpriced at award ") is not cited for this CLIN, but it would appear to be applicable, since the scope is dependent on definition of spares and definitization of PIO scope.

Please confirm that no pricing is required for CLIN

2007.

yes, no pricing is required for CLIN 2007.

12/12/2014 32 RFP Section L.4.1 (VOLUME I: Offer/Administrative), subsection 4 (SECTION B - TABLES B1-B4). "CLIN

0004 [Data] is Not Separately Priced (NSP). No pricing should be submitted for this CLIN.

Please confirm that Data is not an unpriced item (such as the CLINs which cite Note A of Section B), and that the cost of Data shall be included in the pricing of the associated CLINs.

CLIN 0004 Data is NSP. The cost of data shall be included in the pricing of the associated CLINs.

12/12/2014 33 Technical Requirements Document (TRD), Appendices B and C. The embedded Adobe Acrobat files for these Appendices cannot be opened.

Please provide these TRD Appendices. Please use the INS-R ICDs vs the NAVSEA drawings.

TRD appendices will be emailed to Offerors which requested the competition library on 12-23-2014.

These files should be handled in accordance with the terms of use letter. Any discrepencies between the

Appendices and the INS-R ICDs, the INS-R ICDs take precedence.

12/12/2014 34

Section I - Contract Clauses. DFARS 252.225-7008 is cited. This states that this clause is applicable when specialty metals are to be delivered under a contract as an end item.

Based on the prescription of DFARS 252.225-7008, will this clause be removed from this solicitation, due to its non-applicability based on the SOW not requiring specialty metals as an end item?

The government will remove this clause and revise the solicitation.

12/12/2014 35 Section I - Contract Clauses. Will the customer support the inclusion of FAR clause

52.250-1 - Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804?

Please submit a letter explaining the rationale for inclusion of the clause.

12/12/2014 36 Section C (SOW). Clause HQ C-2-0026 states that First Article Test (FAT) should be at contractors expense. In Section I (Contract Clauses), FAR 52.209-3 states “If the first article is disapproved, the

Contractor, upon Government request, shall repeat any or all first article tests. After each request for additional tests, the Contractor shall make any necessary changes, modifications, or repairs to the first article or select another first article for testing. All costs related to these tests are to be borne by the Contractor” which would only hold the contractor responsible for expenses of a retest if FAT failure occurs.

Request clarification as to which clause takes precedence and should be used.

The Government will remove HQ C-2-0026 and

52.209-3 from the RFP. The Contractor should follow

FAR Part 52.209-4. The RFP will be revised accordingly.

12/12/2014 37

Section C (SOW). Subsection 3.2.12.1.3 (Contract Performance Report (CPR)) alludes to the need for

CPR formats (1) through (5). However, the associated CDRL (A033) specifies CPR formats (1) – (7).

Please clarify the CPR requirements. Please see DID DI-MGMT-81861. The IPMR CDRL requires formats 1-7. Subsection 3.2.12.1.3 is referring only to the cost portion of the IMPR.

12/12/2014 39

Section L.1.2 (Submission Questions and Comments). "The deadline for receipt of questions is 12

December 2014. Any questions received after this date may not be answered prior to receipt of proposals ." The Competition Library was not supplied by the Government until 11 December 2014.

Please confirm that all Offeror questions on the

Competition Library that are submitted within 10 days after its receipt by the Offeror will be answered by the

Government.

The deadline for receipt of questions is 19 December

2014.

12/12/2014 40 Section A (SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD). States that the RFP was issued 02 Dec 2014, and the response is due 23 Jan 2015. The Competition Library containing the technical requirements of the Solicitation was not released by the Government until 11 December 2014.

Please revise the proposal due date to reflect the release date of the Competition Library. Additionally, the Government's responses to RFP questions submitted to date may substantively affect each

Offeror's response. Questions on the Competition

Library may be equally substantive. We therefore request that the Government also consider revising the proposal due date to reflect the date at which

Offeror questions are answered.

Revised

^Questions shall be marked as PROPRIETARY if and only if the question or anticipated response contains proprietary information. General questions or requests shall not be marked as