Attachment2_BiddersQuestions_Response6.pdf

DATE QUESTION NO. PROPRIETARY

(Y/N)

RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary) QUESTION Government Responses

12/17/2014 1 N SOW 3.2.6 (Fabrication) Design changes arising from PPUs which are subjected to Environmental Quality and other Navy Tests are then "restored/updated" by the contractor IAW SOW 3.2.6.2, however the EDMs are not. What then are the 6 Surface and 2 Submarine delivered to the TDA used for?

IAW SOW 3.2.6.1 "one EDM Hardware and Software element will be delivered in place to the Contractor as Government Furnished Material (GFM)". Remaining EDMs will be delivered to the TDA and other land based test sites for testing.

12/17/2014 2 N SOW 3.2.6 (Fabrication). The Engineering Development Models (EDMs) must meet "the functional and performance requirements identified in the ISM TRD " and "shall meet the requirements in the ISM TRD directly related to system fabrication and production (Section 3.10 of the ISM TRD, Design and Construction) ." These requirements would seem to indicate minimal difference between the design and construction requirements for the EDMs and for the PPUs, but we are uncertain as to whether this was the Government's intent.

Please clarify the differences between the EDM and PPU design and construction requirements.

For example, what are the differences with respect to acceptance testing, cabinetry, and compliance with environmental requirements?

Differences in construction requirements for the EDMs and PPUs are minimal.

12/17/2014 3 N Section F. While EDMs are deliverable 9 months ACA, and PPUs are deliverable 6 months ACOE, Production units are deliverable 12 months

ACOE.

In order to reduce overall program cost, would the Government consider a 12 vice 9 month EDM delivery schedule ACA?

Section F was revised on 12/23/2014.

12/17/2014 4 N Section J Section J Lists Attachment 1 as "DD2579 Small Business Record", however the Section J Attachment 1 in the solication is "Section_J_Attachment1_DD254.pdf". Are offerors required to fill out and submit DD2579 and will the solication be updated to correct the attachment listings?

Attachment 1 is the DD 254. The solicitation was revised 12/23/2014.

12/17/2014 5 N Section L.4.3 (page 13 of 161) states “The offeror shall complete and submit up to three (3) Relevant Experience Forms for the contracts performed within the past three to five (3‐5) years (five (5) pages maximum for each Relevant Experience) (Reference: Solicitation Attachment 4). Attachment (4) block 12 limits the block 12 attachment to 1 page.

Request clarification on page limit to Attachment

(4) block 12. Recommend section L.4.3 five (5) page limit take precedence and the Attachment

(4) block 12 page limit be removed or modified to reflect a 5 page limit to the past performance exhibit.

Attachment 4 block 12 will be revised to reflect a 5 page limit to the past performance exhibit.

12/17/2014 6 N TRD 3.9.1.6 calls out shock per MIL‐S‐901D, Type I, Grade A. In MIL‐S‐ 901D, Types are designated A, B, or C; Classes are designated I, II, or III.

Please confirm that the Shock requirements are Grade A, Class I, Type A.

Correct.

12/17/2014 7 N TRD 3.6.1 says that "No part of the ISM shall be damaged upon fluctuation or loss and/or restoration of the supplied power source". MIL‐STD‐1399C (listed in Table 2‐1) does not contain a 48 VDC standard which would define fluctuation limits or other power quality requirements.

We suggest using the specifications in Section 390 of MIL‐STD‐1399C, which provides the standards for 155 VDC submarine power.

Because the specifications for fluctuations, transients, etc., are expressed in percentages, they can be used unchanged for ISM 48 VDC power.

Concur.

12/17/2014 10 N SOW 3.2.12.2 Contract Cost Data Reporting Please provide a copy of the CSDR plan and Plan number.

There is no approved CSDR plan at this time.

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

12/17/2014 11 N Section E pg 91. CLINS 2002 and 2003 (LRIP) are the only hardware CLINS that have inspection and acceptance terms that are inspect at destination.

All others are at origin.

Please confirm the inspection and acceptance were intended to be "destination" and if so indicate the locations for CLINs 2002 and 2003 inspection and acceptance.

This is a typo. The solicitation will be revised.

12/17/2014 12 N SOW section 3.6.4 states that “all contractor and subcontractor IA and System engineers and all applicable supporting all staff shall be in compliance with Department of Defense Directive 8570.01‐M ”.

Please confirm this requirement applies only to the classified system environment being established to support this program area and not the unclassified R&D environment.

It applies to both the Classified and Unclassified Environments

12/17/2014 13 N SOW section 2.0 (Applicable Documents) lists DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DOD Information Technology (IT), 12 March 2014 . RMF should not be applicable to this RFP, as the collateral information systems are owned/operated by and located at contractor facility. The Defense Security Service (DSS) is not applying RMF requirements at this time to Defense Industry information systems accredited at the Secret Collateral level.

Please confirm that the RMF does not apply to this RFP, as all work is being accomplished on a contractor owned and operated information system.

Correct.

12/26/2014 2 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.

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

^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 proprietary.