Attachment_2_BiddersQuestion_Response7.pdf

DATE QUESTION NO. PROPRIETARY (Y/N) RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary) QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSES 12/9/2014 1 N Section J Exhibit A, CDRL A032 (INTEGRATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT REPORT (IPMR)). The instructions for Blocks 11, 12, and 13 state "SEE BLK 16." Block 16 contains no instructions for those three blocks.

Please provide instructions for Blocks 11, 12, and 13 of this CDRL. CDRL will be updated. 11. N/A, 12. 30 DAC,

13. Monthly

12/9/2014 2 N Section J Exhibit A, CDRL A073 (INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL MANUALS (IETM) SOURCE DATA). The instructions for Block 12 (Date of 1st Submission) and Block 13 (Date of Subsequent Submission) list the same date (NLT 45 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO PDR).

Please revise the instruction for Block 13 of this CDRL to reflect the Government's intent. The CDRL will be updated to state that the initial draft 30% IETM is due NLT 45 days prior to PDR. The draft 60% IETM is due NLT 45 days prior to CDR. The draft 90% IETM is due NLT 45 days prior to TRR. The Final IETM is due NLT 45 days prior to PRR.

12/9/2014 3 N RFP section L.4.2 (VOLUME II: Technical). A large amount of information is required to be included in this volume, including all aspects of design, production, test, program management, and support.

Unless some of the required topics are considered non‐page‐limited "attachments" per question no.

12 above, the specified page limitations and format requirements (120 page maximum, with 12 point font and 1.5 line spacing for narrative text) will limit the ability of any offeror to present information on each topic to the level of detail necessary for the Government to evaluate the comparative benefits of each offeror’s approach.

To enable each offeror to present the required information at the level of detail necessary for the Government to evaluate the comparative benefits of each offeror’s approach, would the Government consider modifying the page limitations for Volume II? We suggest moving FACTOR 3 (Management Approach and Control) from Volume II to a standalone volume that is page‐limited to a length of the Government's choosing, and/or changing the Volume II page limit from 120 to 200 pages.

Page count will be increased by 40 pgs to a total of 160 pgs.

12/12/2014 4 N Section J Exhibit A, CDRLs. The majority of CDRLs for the base contract are deliverable before PDR. The following CDRLs would be good candidates for delivery post‐PDR/pre‐CDR, based on their content and their dependencies on other CDRLs presented at PDR. Would the Government consider moving the following CDRLs to the post‐PDR/pre‐CDR time frame, for the reasons listed below?

A009 (STD), A010 (STR), A022 (Master Test Procedure) ‐ Dependent on the approval of A008 (STP) at PDR.

A043 (HSI Analysis Report) ‐ Dependent on the approval of A042 (HSI Program Plan) at

PDR.

A047 (Safety Assessment Report), A048 (SSHA) ‐ Dependent on the approval of A046 (SSPP) at PDR.

A065 (PMS Source Data), A073 (IETM Source Data), A074 (Support Documentation and Training Materials) ‐ Dependent on the approval of A063 (Supportability Analysis) and A064 (Maintenance Plan) and related ILS analyses at PDR; data is not used by the Government until the ISM is approved for production.

A022 will be updated for a NLT 45 Days prior to CDR. A043 will be updated for NLT 45 days prior to CDR. A047 first submission is required 45 days prior to CDR, this CDRL will not change. A048 will be updated for NLT 45 days prior to CDR and PRR. A065, A074 will be updated to NLT 45 days prior to CDR.

12/12/2014 5 N Section C (SOW). Subsection 3.2.12.2 (Contract Cost Data Reporting) points to CDRL A033 and A034 for the frequency reporting of the various reports associated with the various Contract Cost Data Reports. The CDRL description says the frequency is to be specified in the CSDR Plan; however, this plan is to be developed. As a result, the reporting frequency is indeterminate as this time.

For proposal purposes, what reporting frequency should be assumed?

A033 AND A037 submissions are required at the next cost reporting cycle after the Governments provides the CDSR which will be NLT 45 DAC.

12/17/2014 6 N SOW 3.2.12.2 Contract Cost Data Reporting CDRL A033 Cost Data Summary Report Form, CDRL A034 Functional Cost‐Hour Report and CDRL A037 Contract Work Breakdown Structure block 16 remarks on frequency and date of submissions refers to events in the approved CCDR plan. What specific contract events does this refer to (PDR, CDR, TRR & PRR listed in SOW 3.1 General) that should be used for pricing purposes?

CDRLS listed apply to all CLINs.

12/17/2014 7 N SOW 3.2.12.2 Contract Cost Data Reporting CDRL A035 Progress Curve Report and CDRL A036 Contractor Business Data report does not include any information in block 16 remarks on frequency and date of submissions.

What should be used for pricing purposes?

Review CDRL BLK 16, dates are listed.

12/26/2014 8 N Amendment 1 added Option CLIN 0010, EDM Build (Surface), to Section B. However, this CLIN was not added to Section M.3, COST/PRICE (FACTOR 6), subparagraph (1), page 163, which lists the CLINs to be considered in the Total Evaluated Price for Design, PPUs and EDMs.

Please confirm that CLIN 0010 will be considered in the Total Evaluated Price, as part of the Total Projected Cost to the Government for Design, PPUs and EDMs. If this is confirmed, please modify RFP Section M.3 accordingly.

Correct/confirmed.

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

12/26/2014 9 N The Amendment 1 modification to RFP Section L.1.3 (AVAILABILITY OF COMPETITION LIBRARY DOCUMENTATION) does not appear to be entirely consistent with the response to the associated Offeror question, or with the contents of the Competition Library CD.

‐ In "Attachment_2_‐Bidders_Question_response_3," question no. 33, the response to the question requesting TRD Appendices B and C states: "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 ."

‐ The modification to Section L.1.3 states: "Please use the INS‐R ICDs emailed 12‐23‐2014 to offerors which requested the competition library vs the NAVSEA drawings provided on the Competition Library CD ." No NAVSEA drawings were included on the CD. However, the CD did include SPAWAR ICDs, and the e‐mailed drawings were designated as "Mounting and Space Req" drawings rather than ICDs. The reference to NAVSEA drawings may possibly refer to the two NAVSEA installation drawings (807‐ 7100685 and 807‐7100696) listed in Table 2‐1 (Requirements Documents and Standards) of the TRD.

Please confirm the following, or provide clarification if this is incorrect:

A) The SPAWAR ICDs on the original Competition Library CD, entitled "INS‐R PRELIMINARY ICD SET (JAN 31 2013)" and "INSR Submarine ICD Final Release (Rev ‐)," are valid for use.

B) The Mounting and Space drawings e‐mailed 12‐23‐2014 ("ISM SUB MOUNTING AND SPACE REQ" and "ISM SURFACE MOUNTING AND SPACE REQ") are also valid for use, but the SPAWAR ICDs listed above take precedence if there are any discrepancies.

C) NAVSEA installation drawings 807‐7100685 and 807‐7100696, listed in Table 2‐1 (Requirements Documents and Standards) of the TRD, are not valid for use.

Correct/confirmed.

12/26/2014 10 N Amendment 1 added clause HQ L‐2‐0004 MAKE‐OR‐BUY PROGRAM (NAVSEA) to the RFP. The added clause is dated SEP 1990. RFP Section L.4.4 states that the Make‐or‐Buy Plan included in the proposal shall be compliant with the "(MODIFIED) (OCT 2013)" version of the clause.

Please confirm that the correct version of the MAKE‐OR‐BUY PROGRAM clause is included in the RFP, or provide the updated version.

This was already answered in posting 6.

"The Government will make sure the most recent clause is included in v3 of the solicitation."

1/12/2015 11 N RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION: The “N00024‐15‐R‐5226 Page Count” document posted on Jan 09 conflicts with the RFP in the area of Software Development Plan (SDP) requirements. The Page Count document states that the SDP is subject to the page limits. This conflicts with RFP clause HQ L‐2‐0016 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006), which states: “The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation.” This NAVSEA clause creates this exemption because the SDP submitted with the proposal must “at a minimum address the requirements of Section C” per this clause. And, per clause HQ C‐2‐0065 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006) (MODIFIED) (SEP 2012), the SDP delivered to the Government after award “shall not vary significantly from that proposed to the Government for evaluation for award.” The section C requirements include:

• Section 3.2.3.2 (Software/Firmware Development), which requires an SDP compliant with CDRL A005. This CDRL invokes DI‐IPSC‐81427A, which requires 129 individually numbered subsections of content for the SDP.

• Clause HQ C‐2‐0065 adds a series of nine additional major content requirements for the SDP, in order to meet all relevant requirements of IEEE 12207 and IEEE 15289.

In order for the SDP to fulfill the requirements of the RFP and provide the NAVSEA‐ specified content for evaluation, please confirm that it is not subject to the page limits of the Technical volume.

Concur. HQ L‐2‐0016 SOFTWARE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

states the SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation.

1/12/2015 12 N The “N00024‐15‐R‐5226 Page Count” document also states that the Staffing Plan is included in the Technical volume page limit. This conflicts with RFP section L.3.1, which states that the Staffing Plan is not subject to the page limits.

Which of these requirements takes precedence? Staffing Plan should be included in the technical volume page limit.