Responses_to_Industry_DRFP_Questions_-_15_April_2015.pdf

MK48 HWT Guidance and Control Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) N00024-R-15-6400

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

13 3.1.1.1 What is the Thermal Design Margin required to support, the spare VME slots?

State the thermal design margin required to account for use of the spare VME slots.

Per CIPS paragraph 3.1.9.8.2, "The maximum output load current for internal power supplies shall be greater than 110% of the required current including an allocation for spare slots of 25W for the generic spare and the lesser of 50W or the wattage of an SP card utilized in the CTP."

These wattages are required for use in thermal analysis.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

16 3.1.1.2.3 "Accessible GigE Ethernet port", is the current design compliant with this requirement? If not, define at what level (CCA, FIR, section) the GigE Ethernet port must be accessible.

Clarify compliance of current design and level of accessibility required.

The ACOT designs all have SP Ethernet connectivity at the backplane. We just want to ensure that this SP Ethernet connectivity at the backplane is NOT removed or eliminated. No additional connectivity (or port) beyond what the prior cardbox variants provide is required at this time. An ECP is pending approval for this issue and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

16 3.1.1.2.3

The 5 second boot time requirement, is it the Government’s intent to provide software to the contractor to allow for boot time testing? To account for Government software changes, what is the maximum software image size requirement for boot time over the life of the contract?

Provide software source for testing boot time requirement and maximum software image size requirement to account for software changes through the life of the contract.

By providing the MK660, which includes an OPSW image the awardee will be able to measure the 5 second boot time requirement. The maximum image size is

32MB.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

22 3.1.2.9.2 Regarding 10BaseT, is this a minimum (can port be capable of other speeds as long as 10BaseT is supported)?

Specify that 10BaseT is a minimum requirement for the port.

Yes, the port can be capable of other speeds as long as 10BaseT is supported, at a minimum, and does not negatively impact the system design.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

23 3.1.3.1 RS-232 port. Where must this port be implemented, and what type of connector is required? Is this added to the C31 implementation, or only if another processor is selected?

Clarify RS-232 port requirement as compared to existing configuration.

This requirement was only intended to be implemented if the card is re-designed. We will update this requirement to remove any ambiguity. If the design is modified we would expect this connector to be on the front test connectors. An ECP is pending approval for this issue and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

24 3.1.3.1 "The HUCS software shall be structured to facilitate testing and troubleshooting with access to their address…" Should this refer to HUCS hardware?

Clarify applicability to HUCS hardware.

This is in error. Should state "The HUCS hardware (not software) shall be structured to facilitate testing and troubleshooting with access to their address, data, and control buses and input/output ports." An ECP is pending approval for this issue and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

116 3.1.8.6 TWC software description seems to be incomplete compared to the other descriptions. Will this be supplied, or is there another document that supplies this information?

Provide complete description of TWS software.

All available software requirement and design documents are being provided as GFI or as part of the Contract Baseline.

8595311 – Draft

GCB Performance Spec

GENERAL GENERAL

Document goes into great detail describing software functionality, much of which is maintained by the government and is assumed to be supplied. Where is it clearly defined which portions are contractor responsibility?

Clarify which portions of described software functionality are contractor responsibility.

The contractor shall meet all of the requirements in the contract baseline. Per section C paragraph 3.1.1 "The Contractor shall modify, reuse, or replace the provided SW, MW, and FW as necessary to meet the requirements of the Contract Baseline (Attachment 1)." Government OPSW will not be provided.

9 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 EMI Filter is not listed as a FIR in Attachment 1, yet is listed as GFE in Attachment 4. Clarify whether EMI is a FIR or component. The EMI Filter is a sub-component of the GCB as defined in the GCB CIPS.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

ATTACHMENT

16 CBASS

OBSOLESCENCE

IMPACTS

N00024-15-R-

Attachment 16

Attachment 16 has a document date of Sept 2014, but states in the text that the analysis was done in May 2014. Is further obsolescence identification being performed that can be provided as an update or will this be the last date on the baseline product that will be produced?

Clarify the final update date. No further updates are expected.

COMPETITION

LIBRARY 04

MAR 2015,

TORPEDO MK 48

ALL MODS

AUTOMATIC

TEST

EQUIPMENT MK

660 MOD 2

2-Jan 2.2/ATE MAJOR

ASSEMBLIES.

Is the Calibration Console (CALCON), a component of the ATE, MK 660 Mod 1? The ATE Major Assemblies list and Table 2-1 does not list the item separately. Is there a top down parts list which identifies all of the hardware, software and documentation which comprises the MK-660?

Provide a complete top-down list of all MK 660 hardware, software and documentation.

The Calibration Console is a support assembly to the MK

660. A top down parts list for the MK 660 and all GFE test equipment is provided with the RFP.

12 Draft RFP 4 Section B Should the unit of measure for CLIN(s) 0005, 0105, 0205, 0305 and 0405 be “Each” instead of “Lot”? Request change the Unit of Measure to “Each”

Lot is correct, because the final test equipment solution might include more than one 'unit' and we don't know the final solution.

13 Draft RFP 12 Section B On page 12 of Draft RFP, Section B CLIN 0204, step ladder pricing ranges have not been identified. Provide step ladder pricing ranges for this CLIN?

The stepladder pricing contained in the RFP has been revised since the DRAFT release. Industry is responsible for proposing stepladder pricing in accordance with Section B Note F. The Government's evaluation method of stepladder quantities remains unchanged in accordance with Section L Section 6.2.1.2.

14 Draft RFP 30 Section C / CLIN 0001 Para 5

The Nose Array test requirements specification 8595315 is specified in the CLIN 0001 description. Request this document be provided, as it was not made available in the DRFP package.

This information was provided on the CLASSIFIED Disk.

UNCLASS Disk says "This document is Classified. See separate CD S/N 15063002."

15 Draft RFP 32 Section C Will the Government provide the list of countries for which FMS units will be sold on or before the RFP release? No, this information will be provided after contract award

16 Draft RFP 34

7th paragraph - CLIN Description 0011, etc. –

Production Support Material

Are the items delineated in Exhibit E to be quoted as full assemblies, or is this CLIN intended to only lay in component level material for those stated assemblies?

Clarify the scope of material for Exhibit E. Quoted as full assemblies

17 Draft RFP 36 Section 2.5, 2nd paragraph

Attachment 10 is an empty list of software for which the Gov't has accepted terms of license for Commercial Computer Software.

Does this mean that existing HW does not currently have any Commercial Computer software?

Specify any existing Commercial Computer Software for which the government has accepted terms of license.

The current hardware does contain CCS (VxWorks (DP & SP), Virtuoso (BSAR)). However, the offerors are required to complete Attachment 10 and include with proposal submission. Offerors should review Section L Paragraphs 3.1.5.2 and 3.2.2.6 to understand the intent of Attachment 10.

18 Draft RFP 38 para 3.1

Under paragraph 3.1 statement that section 5.0 of the Technical Volume does not count against page count of the technical volume is confusing. In detailed description of sections, some sections (Classified volume) indicated as counting against page count and others do not.

Clarify which sections in the detailed description do not count against page count for proposal. Language has been updated.

19 Draft RFP 38 Part 3 Statement of Work, section 3.1

3.1 Scope - Suggests that Pre-POM are required for both the G&C and CBASS Upgrade Kits, although there is no CLIN for G&C Pre-POM units

Clarify requirement for Pre-POM G&C units. Pre-POM units will only bought for CBASS Upgrade Kits.

20 Draft RFP 38 Section 3.1.1 Are the items in the 4th paragraph of section 3.1.1 of the RFP intended to be items c. and d. of the preceding list?

Clarify if the fourth paragraph are additional functions of the G&C and should be listed as “c” and “d”.

Subject paragraph has been updated to show they are additional functions.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

21 Draft RFP 38 Section C / Para 3.1.1

The TDP contains limited SW artifacts, except for Software Version Descriptions (SVDs) and Programmable Logic Version Descriptions (PLVDs). For FIR related SW delivered as described in Section 3.1.1, what supplemental artifacts (such as those identified in Attachment 9) will be provided?

The Government will provide all SW/FW/MW (and associated artifacts) received from the previous contractor, as well as all SW documents referenced the Contract Baseline documents.

22 Draft RFP 40 Section 3.3.1.1 Are all sub-tier FIR suppliers required to maintain SECRET facility?

Clarify if all suppliers must maintain SECRET facilities. If not, clarify which suppliers will be required to maintain SECRET facilities.

Follow requirements of DD254, sub-tier suppliers are only required to have facilities with a sufficient clearance to accomplish their work.

23 Draft RFP 40 Section 3.3.1.2

States Parts Mgmt Plan should provide Technology Road-mapping … supporting End-Of-Life. Will the government identify what interval / time limit represents End-Of-Life for the program, or does contractor establish End of Life as part of its plan?

Clarify responsibility for establishing End of Life. If it is a government responsibility, state the required time duration for End of Life.

End-Of-Life for this effort is 5 years of a production contract.

24 Draft RFP 43 Section 3.3.2.3.2 Does Government intend to hold IBRs when each option is awarded? Clarify frequency of IBRs. Only one IBR will be held in accordance with Section

C.3.3.2.3.2.

25 Draft RFP 47 Paragraph 3.3.2.5.1 – Minimum Sustaining

Quantities:

Under the required information labeled “a”, is the basis for determining an increase in unit cost the unit cost of the last Option exercised? If not, then what is that basis?

Clarify the basis for determining unit cost increase. Increasing the unit cost from that price quoted.

26 Draft RFP 49 Paragraph 3.3.3.4 – Assembly Procedures:

To what assembly level are manufacturing process procedures expected in CDRL A016? Is this to be at the contractor’s discretion?

Clarify extent of deliverable Manufacturing Process Procedures.

The contractor shall propose based on MIL-STD-31000A (required per DID): "Proposed critical manufacturing process descriptions shall be prepared to describe manufacturing processes, which are critical to meeting the design requirements of the item."

27 Draft RFP 50 Section C/ Para 3.3.3.8

"Traceability of requirements" is called out for GCB, BSAR, Preamplifier and Transmitter FIRs. Should such traceability be limited to the Build to Specification FIRs (GCB/BSAR/Preamplifier) only?

Requirements for traceability are for BTS FIRs only.

28 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7.1

Test equipment listed as GFE includes GCB FIR level, and BSAR FIR level. No reference is made to provision of a Power Module test station. Is it assumed a new Power Module test station must be developed for this contract?

Clarify need for a new Power Module Test station or existence of a GFE Power Module Test station.

Per section C paragraph 3.3.7.1.1 "The Contractor shall design, engineer, produce, test, and certify a test station capable of testing all Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) level FAT requirements of CIPS 8595311" which includes requirements for the Power Modules.

29 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7.1

Language indicates Contractor is to certify that FIR level test requirements are met with GFE equipment. This implies that the existing GFE Test Equipment does not currently meet this certification requirement? Or have requirements changed for GFE functionality with this RFP? If so, will a list of the changed requirements be supplied?

Clarify Government intent for contractor to certify GFE Test Equipment meets FIR level requirements.

Clarify if requirements for GFE Test Equipment have changed with this RFP. If so, provide the list of new requirements that are currently not certified with existing GFE Test Equipment.

Per section C, paragraph 3.3.7.1.1 and 3.3.7.1.2; If the contractor can produce GCBs, BSARs, and PREAMPs to the supplied GFI TDPs without modification no re-certification of the GFE test equipment is necessary.

However, if the designs change a recertification would be required.

30 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

Use of the GFE MK660 is required for several test protocols.

Will the Government train/certify the contractor in the operation, calibration, maintenance and safety standards necessary to operate this complicated test asset? If so what would the expected training duration be and where would training occur?

Clarify how contractor will be trained/certified for operation, calibration and maintenance of the GFE

MK660.

The Government will provide all necessary training for the use of the GFE test equipment at the contractor's facility. Training for operation and maintenance is planned to occur at the awardee's facility after delivery of 1st GFE MK 660 and will take approximatly two weeks.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

31 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

What will be the process for repairing failed hardware and restoring computer system failures of the GFE test assets?

Clarify responsibility and process for troubleshoot and repair of failed GFE test assets.

Necessary repairs will be specified via TI and in accordance with section C paragraph 3.3.11.1.2: "The Contractor shall provide Engineering Services through CLINs 0008, 0108, 0208, 0308, and 0408 and Hardware Repair and Maintenance Services through CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409 for troubleshooting, Government approved upgrades and repairs, packaging, and transportation of all GFE test sets and equipment."

32 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

Will the GFE test assets be certified and calibrated at the contractor site as part of delivery? Clarify condition of delivered GFE test assets. Yes they will.

33 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

Reference is made to modifying GFE test equipment if required.

Will the test equipment design documentation, source code, compilers and other development tools be provided?

Clarify delivery of required documents and tools to support required modification of GFE test equipment.

For BSAR/PreAmp test equipment all information available is provided in the "Competation Library", for the GCB test equipment all documentation will be provided at contract award.

34 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

The GFE hardware list, Attachment 3 of the DRAFT_RFP 20150304, identifies that two ATE, MK 660 Mod 1 PN 5854720 test assets will be provided. The documentation supplied in the competition library is for a Mod 2 version of the system. What are the hardware, software and test procedure differences between the Mod 1 and Mod 2?

Clarify that the documentation provided in the competition library for MK 660 ATE Mod 2 is applicable to the MK660 ATE Mod 1 that will be provided as GFE under the solicitation.

Updated MK660 ATE Mod 1 documentation is provided in the updated "Competition Library".

35 Draft RFP 53 Section 3.3.7/Factory Test Equipment

What are the facilities requirements such as power, grounding, cooling, water, air, crane and dimensions for the MK660 test system?

Provide facility requirements for MK 660 ATE. This information is contained in the provided GFI, Item 13 in the "Competition Library."

36 Draft RFP 53 Section C/ Para 3.3.7

Regarding the Factory test equipment, paragraph 3.3.7 of the SOW (page 53 of 217) states “The Contractor shall develop new, and/or modify the GCB and BSAR/Preamplifier GFE Factory Test Equipment and associated cables as necessary to verify the production acceptance requirements”. The subsequent paragraphs identify GCB, BSAR and Transmitter test stations. Is the assumption correct that the contractor shall deliver one of each of these test stations per “lot”? Furthermore, there is also a requirement for contractors to develop the capability to test the GCB down to the CCA level, capabilities that “are not currently tested on the GFE GCB test stations.“ If these capabilities are developed by the contractor on this contract, do these additional test stations also need to be delivered in the “lot” of Factory Test Equipment?

A "lot" of CLIN 0X05 shall consist of a Transmitter Test Station, and a GCB CCA level FAT test station as a minimum. However, if the contractor produces new test stations due to GCB and/or BSAR design changes, then these new test stations shall be included in the "lot."

37 Draft RFP 54 Section 3.3.7.1.1 If a new GCB Test Station is designed and built, will it only be required to test the GCB built under this contract or will it be required to test other GCB configurations?

Clarify requirement for test capability if a new GCB Test Station is built.

It will only be required to test the FAT requirements of the GCBs procured under this contract as defined in document 8595311.

38 Draft RFP 54 Section 3.3.7.1.1

Paragraph requires design of CCA module level test capability to the requirements of 8595311. But this document is a FIR level document. It is not clear how requirements are flowed from that document to any included modules.

Clarify how requirements of 8595311 flow down from the FIR level to the CCA level.

CCA FAT requirements are explicitly listed in the Verification Cross Reference Index (VCRI) of the specification. However, the CCA used to meet the requirement is not defined and left open as design trade space for the awardee to develop.

39 Draft RFP 54 Section 3.3.7.1.1\GCB Factory Test Equipment

States “GCB Test Equipment Documentation is not currently available”. Will documentation and source code be supplied at a later date.

Clarify availability of GCB Test Equipment Documentation. Will be provided by contract award.

40 Draft RFP 54 Section 3.3.7.1.1\GCB Factory Test Equipment

States “Wirelink Test Equipment Documentation not currently available”. Will procedures, design documentation and source code be supplied at a later date?

Clarify availability of Wirelink Test Equipment Documentation. Will be provided by contract award.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

41 Draft RFP 54 Section 3.3.7.1.2\BSAR Factory Test Equipment

Will design documentation and source code be supplied should it become necessary to make modifications to the test set? Cover page on BSAR procedures indicate Government data rights expire on 05/08/15.

Clarify availability BSAR Test Set design documentation and source code should it become necessary to make modifications to the test set.

Clarify the implication of Government Data Rights expiration on 05/18/15.

All design and source code information the Government has is provided to offerors in the "Competitave Library" and will be updated again at Contract Award. The Government owns GPR for BSAR technical data.

42 Draft RFP 54 Section C / 3.3.7.1.3

Para 3.3.7.1.3 states: “The Transmitter Factory Test Equipment shall meet the requirements of System Requirements Document (SRD) 8595292.” Will this document be provided with the release of the final RFP?

This document is provided with the final RFP.

43 Draft RFP 54 SOW Para 3.3.7.1.3

CLIN 0005, For the Transmitter Test Equipment (ATE) for FAT, if there is no TDP available for the Transmitter ATE, is there a legacy hardware set available for hardware development reference?

Legacy transmitter test equipment is not available for use on this contract. Per section C paragraph 3.3.7.1.3 "The Contractor shall design, engineer, test, certify, produce, and deliver a Transmitter Test Station capable of testing the Performance Characteristics of specifications 6238849, 6238850, 6238852, and 8595319 (sections 3.2.1) to test the Transmitter FIR being built to assembly number 5728260. The Transmitter Factory Test Equipment shall meet the requirements of System Requirements Document (SRD) 8595292."

44 Draft RFP 54 SOW Para 3.3.7.1.3

Have any suppliers been provided GFE Transmitter Test Stations for execution of current MK48 contracts? If so, will those Test Stations be available for use for the contract? Does the legacy transmitter test equipment currently test transmitters to the latest version of the CIPS? If not, can a list of the requirements tested by the legacy test equipment be provided?

This contract calls for the contractor to fabricate and/or procure, assemble, test and deliver a new Transmitter test set. Legacy transmitter test equipment is not available for use on this contract.

Per section C paragraph 3.3.7.1.3 "The Contractor shall design, engineer, test, certify, produce, and deliver a Transmitter Test Station capable of testing the Performance Characteristics of specifications 6238849, 6238850, 6238852, and 8595319 (sections 3.2.1) to test the Transmitter FIR being built to assembly number 5728260. The Transmitter Factory Test Equipment shall meet the requirements of System Requirements Document (SRD) 8595292."

45 Draft RFP 58 Section C 3.3.11.1.2

Para 3.3.11.1.2 states: “The Contractor shall perform scheduled preventative maintenance and scheduled calibration upon the GFE Factory Test Equipment.” Can the Government please provide details related to current and ongoing preventative maintenance for GFE Factory Test Equipment?

All documentation the Government has related to preventative maintenance is included with documentation provided as GFI.

46 Draft RFP 76 Section D – Packaging and Marking:, 3rd paragraph

Please provide quantity of GFE Shipping containers for this contract. If this quantity is determined by the contractor to be insufficient to maintain the scheduled delivery pace, is the contractor expected to cost additional containers? Please provide drawing numbers 5759688 and 5759669 to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of all packaging requirements.

Clarify number of GFE containers to be provided and how they will impact the required delivery pace under this solicitation.

Government will provide enough containers to meet requirements. Drawings 8165968, 8165967 & 6146776 are provided in the competition library. Drawing numbers will be updated in the final contract as follows: Replace 5759669 with 8165968, 5759688 with 8165967.

47 Draft RFP 80 Section E In the period between conditional and final acceptance, will the Government issue TIs to cover any required level of support? Yes

48 Draft RFP 80 Section E / CLIN 0001

For CLIN 0001, please confirm that it is the Government's intent to continue POM testing until 270 days after successful completion of PRR. This conflicts with the entrance criteria for PRR specified in the SOW para 3.3.2.3.4.1 Entrance Criteria on page 45 of the DRFP.

Language has been updated.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

49 Draft RFP 86 Section HQ E-2-0017

Paragraph indicates contractor's gauges & measuring equipment & testing devices shall be made available for gov't use. Please clarify the government’s intent for the use of contractor’s gauges, measuring equipment and testing devices. Is this requirement at the contractor's or subcontractor's site (i.e. not at gov't sites).

Clarify the intended government use of these materials and that the government intends to use these contractor materials at the contractor site.

Per HQ E-2-0017 contractor's gages, and measuring and testing devices shall be required when the Government verifies Contractor's conformance with contract requirements. This verification is expected to happen at contractor's or subcontractor's site, not at Government site.

50 Draft RFP 100 Section I

The Government has included FAR clauses 52.215-10 "Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data" and 52.215-12 "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data". Will the Government please confirm that these clauses are not applicable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 (C)(1) due to the competitive nature of this acquisition and will be removed upon release of the final RFP?

Due to the competitive nature of this acquisition both 52.215-10 and 52.215-12 have been removed.

51 Draft RFP 118 Section I / Para 52.217-9 (c)

The total duration of this contract shall not exceed five years, however; last option exercise of production CLINs may not happen until 54 months after contract award. Is the government's expectation that all deliveries be completed before month 60 of the contract award?

The contract contains a base year and four option years.

The 54 month deadline represents the last possible date to exercise the option for the 4th option year. The Government may exercise this option in advance of the 54 month deadline. For supply contracts, the five year duration limit is not on the duration of the contract, but on the number of years' worth of supply requirements.

Therefore, all deliveries are not required to be delivered before month 60 of the contract. The deliveries are to be made in accordance with Attachment 2: Shipping Instructions Data.

52 Draft RFP 178 Section L /3.2.1.1.2

In addition to the requirements listed in paragraph 3.2.1.1, the Offeror shall propose the Unit and Total Price for each (including stepladders as specified in Section B) of the following Firm Fixed Price CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0103, 0104, 0105, 0203, 0204, 0205, 0303, 0304, 0305, 0403, 0404, and 0405. In addition, the Offeror shall propose stepladder ranges where price breaks may be achieved as long as min and max quantities are included in the Offeror’s pricing. Maximum stepladder ranges per CLIN shall not exceed 9 ranges. In the event an offeror elects to submit different steps with unique ranges, which values will be utilized for evaluation?

The stepladder pricing contained in the RFP has been revised since the DRAFT release. Industry is responsible for proposing stepladder pricing in accordance with Section B Note F. The Government's evaluation method of stepladder quantities remains unchanged in accordance with Section L Section 6.2.1.2.

53 Draft RFP 184 Table L-1 and L-2

The government has requested Table L1 and Table L2 to be completed and submitted with the proposal submission. These tables only accounts for a single "Fully Burdened Rate." But, the contractor has discrete rates for each year. Is it the government's intent for the contractor to submit Table L1 and Table L2 for each year?

Clarify how many versions of Table L1 and L2 are required in the proposal.

Tables L-1 and L-2 are examples of the format and degree of detail required in the offeror's submittal. Offerors are required to submit a Table L-1 (or a Table similar) for CLIN 0001. Offerors are required to submit a Table L-2 (or a Table similar) for each of CLINs 0008, 0108, 0208, 0308, 0408, 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409. Offerors may provide any additional information such as rate breakout by calendar year if necessary to support proposed costs.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

54 Draft RFP 206 Section M / Technical Approach

Redesign of HW, SW, FW within the Guidance and Control may impact Government maintained Operational SW. How will redesign efforts be evaluated related to their impact on OP SW?

Per section L paragraph 3.1.1.4 "In describing the scope of the software and firmware redesign effort required due to obsolescence, the Offeror shall describe the scope and complexity of the effort required to perform the software and firmware redesign, integration, test, and validation."

Per section M paragraph 5.1.2 "The Offeror’s redesign and/or life of contract purchasing strategy will be evaluated for completeness and technical feasibility."

55 Draft RFP 208 Section M Will the government continue to maintain and support provided GFE, and make parts and support resources available?

Per section C paragraph 3.3.11.1.2 "The Contractor shall provide Engineering Services through CLINs 0008, 0108, 0208, 0308, and 0408 and Hardware Repair and Maintenance Services through CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409 for troubleshooting, Government approved upgrades and repairs, packaging, and transportation of all GFE test sets and equipment."

56 Draft RFP 4-21 Section B / CLINs 0105, 0205, 0305 and 0405

Upon initial delivery of CLIN 0005 Factory Test Equipment, will the Government provide the test equipment as GFE to support production and test of FIR and Section hardware?

No. The Government intends to use the test equipment to support US Navy needs.

57 Draft RFP 94,95 Section H-1 Para 3 and Para 4

Under para 3 states Notification shall be made 14 days after discovery of DMSMS, Para 4 states Notification shall be made 15 days after discovery.

Make paragraph 3 and 4 consistent. Paragraph 3 has been revised to read "15 days after discovery" to be consistent with paragraph 4.

58 Draft RFP Exhibit C Exhibit C What quantities should be assumed for quoting? Provide single quantity or range Language has been updated.

59 Draft RFP Exhibit D Exhibit D What quantities should be assumed for quoting? Provide single quantity or range Language has been updated.

60 Draft RFP Exhibit E Exhibit E What quantities should be assumed for quoting? Provide single quantity or range Language has been updated.

61 Draft RFP General General

Per Industry Day presentation, several G&C components have identified suppliers. Can it be assumed all products from these suppliers comply with the HALT/HASS testing requirements in this RFP?

Clarify whether existing suppliers have met HALT/HASS requirements

Not all designs have been required to comply with HALT/HASS requirements.

62 Draft RFP N/A Attachment 1 Will the CIPS for Sonar Analog Transmitter (6934913), identified in the Contract Baseline (Attachment 1) be provided with Final

TDP?

6934913 was replaced with 8595319, which was provided in the "Competition Library." Attachment 1 has been updated.

63 Draft RFP N/A Attachment 1

57 new requirements and 51 new verification procedures/steps have been added to the GCB, BSAR and Preamp specifications.

How will each bidder's technical solutions to these specific requirements be evaluated for compliance. Will bidders who fail to address these specific requirements be deemed non-compliant?

The contractor will be required to address the requirements as stated in the solicitation and will be evaluated per Section M.

64 Draft RFP N/A Attachment 3

As stated in the MK54 Obsolescence Mitigation White Paper, the GFI MK54 CIC design is not compatible with the CBASS Cardbox. Will bidders who utilize this design be responsible for all system level safety design and testing through WSESRB?

The contractor is responsible to meet all of the requirements (including all safety requirements) in Attachment 1 and per section C paragraph 3.3.5.2 "The Contractor shall support and provide slide presentations for System Safety Working Groups (SSWGs) WSESRB and SSSTRP meetings. These presentations will include design information, information on how safety requirements were met, a description of safety testing conducted and safety status. The Contractor shall also provide inputs to the SSSTRP and WSESRB data packages."

65 Draft RFP N/A Attachment 4 Will the Government provide details regarding GFE Factory Test Equipment test capabilities compared to FIR level CIPS documents?

All available documentation is provided as GFI.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

66 Draft RFP N/A Attachment 4

The current GCB Test Station design tests to legacy GCB specifications. Will the GFE GCB Test Station delivered 50 DAC include updates to allow testing to the updated specification (8595311) provided with the TDP?

No. However, if the GFI GCB design is able to be built without modification, then the GFE GCB test station can be used as a certified FAT tester.

67 Draft RFP N/A N/A

The Draft RFP does not address the significant number of waivers that currently exist related to the GCB, BSAR and associated Test Equipment. Should bidders assume that these waivers will be resolved prior to contract award?

Waivers and deviations from other contracts will not be provided with the TDP. The offeror's proposal shall meet the requirements of this solicitation.

68 Draft RFP N/A TDP

Should the contractor use the 16th May 2014 CBASS Obsolescence Impacts White Paper as a basis of estimate for obsolescence mitigation tasks? If not, has the government estimated redesign efforts to replace components that have gone obsolete since drafting of the CBASS Obsolescence Impacts White Paper?

Attachment 16 is a view of obsolescence at a certain point in time. The offeror is responsible to take into account any items that may have gone obsolete since Att. 16's release. Per section L paragraph 3.1.1.4 "The Offeror shall provide a list of all items that are obsolete and its technical approach to address this obsolescence. The Offeror shall provide a list of all items that are viewed as at risk of becoming obsolete during the contract period and its technical approach to address this obsolescence risk."

69 Draft RFP N/A TDP To what extent does the existing design, as provided in the TDP, have open waivers and deviations? Will these be provided with the final TDP release?

Waivers and deviations from other contracts will not be provided with the TDP. The offeror's proposal shall meet the requirements of this solicitation.

70 DRFP 54 SOW

Does the Government have GFE Factory Test Equipment (FTE) test periods and operating availability statistics to support production capacity calculations?

Government should provide baseline data for evaluation by contractor. This data will inform contractor decisions on retaining design of test equipment or re-design for more efficient testing.

An estimate of these amounts will be provided with the Final RFP in the form of an updated attachment 12.

These estimates will be for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding.

71 DRFP 54 SOW

Existing contracts provide for the use of GFE test equipment for the MK 48 Transmitter (6238331). Can that test equipment be used as part of contractor’s response if not available to other offerors?

Offerors shall refer to Section L "3.2.3 CHAPTER 3.0-- Use of Existing Government Production and Research Property" for instructions for proposing the use of existing Government furnished property. Offerors shall refer to Section M "6.2.1.11 Government Production and Research Property Adjustments" for evaluation of proposed Government furnished property.

72 DRFP 81 Section E

1. Is the contractor entitled to full payment upon Conditional Acceptance, or does the government anticipate a payment withhold until Final Acceptance? a. If there is a withhold, what is that amount envisioned to be? b.Does the government anticipate a warranty period after final acceptance that is not in the current DRFP? c. Would the Navy entertain offers that provide for other than conditional acceptance? 2. Would the Navy allow for the contractor to integrate of MK48 CBASS upgrade kits into GFE G&C sections for final delivery so that the contractor can perform higher level testing of all requirements?

If conditional acceptance is non-negotiable, would the Navy allow for the contractor to integrate of MK48 CBASS upgrade kits into GFE G&C sections for final delivery so that the contractor can perform higher level testing of all requirements?

1.a) The Contractor will be entitled to customary progress payments per 52.232-16. 1.b.) A warranty period is not required or expected in this proposal. 1.c.) The Government will not entertain other acceptance terms. 2.)

No, the proposed approach of integrating MK 48 CBASS upgrade kits into GFE G&C sections for final delivery in order to perform higher level testing of all requirements is not allowed.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

73 DRFP 203 Section M Although the Navy characterizes this as a best value procurement, the only quantitative criteria in section M is total evaluated price.

Provide quantitative criteria for evaluation of critical evaluation areas such as NRE/POM. For example, is a lifetime buy more or less desirable than a redesign, or is there a cost/benefit analysis that offerors should perform based on given quantities and time periods?

Are different test equipment approaches more beneficial to the government and therefore should be weighted more favorably e.g. commonality with MK695 or AutoLITS?

Further quantitative criteria will not be added under Factor 2. Refer back to Section M "Basis for Award" - "The contract will be awarded in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1. The Government intends to make one award under this solicitation that will be made to the responsible, responsive Offeror who represents the best overall value to the Government, considering the factors identified below. In making its best value determination, the Government considers the non-price factor and subfactors (Volume I – Technical Proposal), when combined, to be significantly more important than price factor (Volume II– Cost/Price Proposal). However, the significance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in the overall technical merit of proposals. The Government reserves the right to award the contract to the Offeror with the higher total evaluated price; if a higher technical rating and/or past performance assessment would yield the best value to the Government."

74 DRFP 208 Section M

If an offeror was to propose an approach based on existing in production but proprietary design (e.g. a missile system), would the Navy's desire for Government Purpose Rights (GPR) outweigh a significant reduction in production costs? Would the Navy increase evaluated price based on other than Full GPR?

Request that the Government provide quantitative evaluation criteria on relative importance of Government Purpose Rights (GPR) versus final proposal price

The impact of data assertions will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.

75 DRFP 165/207 Section L Section M

In the Navy's evaluation priority and calculation of Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is more desirable, a Design For Manufacture and Assembly approach that minimizes NRE or an approach that minimizes unit production cost?

Section M should provide quantitative goals for DFMA after contract award that contractors should strive for and evaluate offers against those goals. If offerors assume NRE investment, the DFMA savings will be included in the production costs, therefore all the risk is with the offeror, without understanding the government’s goals or targeted technologies/assemblies.

The TEP will be calculated and evaluated in accordance with to Section M.

76 DRFP 42/208 Section C Section M Does the Navy have an established technical road map to align strategic obsolescence and technical refresh decisions towards a best value solution?

The RFP should provide a technical road map and require offerors to define obsolescence approaches that enable the technical roadmap and articulate the benefit to the government. Evaluation criteria should identify quantitative criteria regarding how the approaches are weighted

The Program plan is to maintain a baseline for the base year plus four option years.

77 Exhibit C Exhibit C EMI Filter/Cable are not listed Add EMI filter/cable. Captured in 8595311.

78 Exhibit F Exhibit F Hose, Water Cooling says (See Note 1). Washer, Lock says (See Note 2) There are no notes. Add the required notes. Language has been updated.

MK 48 CBASS Re- Compete Program

Guidance and Control (G&C)

Section Acceptance Document

2.1/Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Testing Documentation

Will applicable documents, SW513-EO-PRO-040, 050, 060, 6666666, 5729350 be provided? Clarify availability of testing documentation. Yes, all available documentation is provided as GFI.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Number Document Description Page # Section / Paragraph Question / Comment Proposed Action / Change Government Response

80 MK48 TDP General General Required source code and design files for CPLDs and FPGAs are not included in the TDP.

Provide the required source code and design files for all CPLDs and FPGAs in the MK48 drawings. Provided in "competition library" in attachment 3.

81 MK48 TDP General General Existing source code for Contractor Responsible software (middleware) is not included in the TDP.

Provide the required existing source code for all contractor responsible software (middleware) in the MK48 drawings.

Provided in "competition library" in attachment 3.

82 TDP 8475701

The 8475701 MANIFOLD ASSY, DEPTH SENSOR ASSY specifies a McMaster-Carr (CAGE 3A054) pipe plug for Item 2 on the PL, but the part number “AS4862K00” is not a McMaster- Carr part number.

Clarify the reference for Part # AS4862K00.

CAGE 3A054 for part AS4862K00 is an error.

AS4862K00 is a SAE International Standard and should call out SAE cage code 0U583.

48/NUE15045 has been generated to correct this oversight.

Torpedo MK 48 Critical Item Performance Specification (CIPS) for the

MOD 7 Common Broadband

Advanced Sonar System (CBASS)

Broadband Analog Sonar Receiver

(BSAR) 8595317

Can the government clarify why the "Group B" signals injected into the BSAR are taken from elements 14, 16, 38 and 40 per the BSAR CIPS vice 13, 16, 37 and 40.

Clarify signal injection path.

This is an error in the BSAR CIPS. The statement in section 3.1 should read "It should be noted that these signals are actually copies of the analog input signals 13, 16, 37 and 40 and are output as element channels 53, 54, 55 and 56, respectively." An ECP is pending approval for this issue and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

Request for Information (N00024-15-R-6403) for MK 48 MOD7 APB/TI1 has been posted on FBO: 1.What is the Navy’s intended insertion of hardware designed under 6403 into the resultant contract for this Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP), if any. 2.

Will performance requirements for 6403 be part of the eventual contract for this DRFP?

These two requirements are unrelated.

MK48 TDP General General

Why did the G&C Section drawings not include all of the latest FIR designs in the Contract Baseline? For example; 5856624 shows on PL7054106, however 8619933 was provided on the CD.

Does the Government plan to update?

Update of the G&C Section to incorporate the newly qualified FIR designs is in process. An ECP is pending approval for this issue and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

MK48 TDP General General

Why are some of the Wirelink Interface Assembly drawings not "APPROVED/ACCEPTED FOR NAVSEA" (e.g.: 8619953)?

An ECP is pending approval to finalize the Wirelink Interface Assembly design and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024-15-R-6400.

MK48 TDP General General

In the transmitter baseline a note was provided which referred to a pending ECP (48/NUE15031). Has this ECP been approved and the changes incorporated into the transmitter baseline?

The ECP is pending approval to remove drawing number 8325608-1 and replace with 5728275 and will not be included in the Competition Library release for N00024- 15-R-6400.

Sheet1