Response_to_Bidders_Questions_2.pdf

ATTACHMENT-8 N00024-16-R-6414

RFP ANSWER FORM TO RFP QUESTION SUBMITTAL FORM

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP M.2.1.1 and L.4.1.1

Page number and paragraph header from source: page 157, M 2.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 Technical Capabilities/Corporate Experience

Question 10: The evaluation criteria listed on page 157 (Section M 2.1.1, Subfactor 1.1 Technical Capabilities/Corporate Experience) states that the Government will evaluate the Applicable Documents and GFI and identification of all potential risks in Section 1.1 of the Technical Volume.

However, Section L.4.4.1 on page 137 states that the offeror shall identify Applicable Documents and GFI and demonstrate understanding and identification of all potential risks in Section 1.0 Introduction of the required outline.

Due to the corresponding evaluation criteria, it appears as though Section 1.0 Introduction should be part of Subfactor 1, is this correct?

Answer 10: Section 4.1.1 Introduction shallbe evaluated with Subfactor 1 criteria. Section M, paragraph 2.1.1 of the solicitiation has been revised to include this evaluation criteria.

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP L.4.1

Page number and paragraph header from source: page 136, 4.1 Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

Question 11: With respect to item 1.0.1 Subfactor Summary, will the Government please clarify the instructions for Subfactor Summary and provide the corresponding evaluation criteria?

Answer 11: Section L of the solicitation has been revised to remove 1.0.1 Subfabor Summary.

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP, Section 4.1.3.1

Page number and paragraph header from source: Page 139, Section 4.1.3.1, STAFFING PLAN

AND KEY PERSONNEL

Question 12: With respect to providing a chart showing personnel loading by skill category over time, can the Government please clarify what is meant by “skill category”?

Is this a level such as Senior, Mid-Level, Junior, or type of work performed such as Management, System Engineering, Integration, Test, ILS, etc., or labor category, or some other schema?

Answer 12: An example of labor categories/schema can be found in Section L, paragraph 4.3.2.1, Figure 1 Example Cost Summary for Engineering Services.

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP

Page number and paragraph header from source: Page 145, 4.3.2 SUMMARY COST DATA

Question 13: “The following cost summaries shall be provided by Government fiscal year (October 1 – 30 September) and Contractor fiscal year (if different than Government fiscal year):

c. A cost summary for each WBS at the cost element level.”

To what WBS level should this cost summary be provided to?

Answer 13: Cost summaries shall be at WBS level 3 in accordance with Data Item Description (DID) DI-MGMT-81334D, as listed on the Contract Work Breakdown Structure CDRL A002 issued with this solicitation and the Statement of Work (SOW) section 3.1.3 .

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP

Page number and paragraph header from source: Page 145, Section 4.3.1

Question 14:

“1.2.6 Government Production and Research Property

1.2.7 Contractor Self-Assessment of Cost Risk

1.2.8 Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software”

With respect to the Cost/Price volume outline, Section 1.2 Supporting Cost Data, items 1.2.6 and

1.2.7 appear in this outline, but do not appear to have corresponding Section L requirements. Will the Government please clarify what requirements are to be used here?

Item 1.2.8 appears in the outline for the Cost/Price volume, however the only reference for this item appears in the Technical Volume requirements (Section L 4.1.2.4 of the RFP). Does the Government require the Rights in Technical Data information to appear in both the Technical Volume and the Cost/Price Volume?

Answer 14: The solicitation has been revised to remove Sections 1.2.6 Government Production and Research Property, 1.2.7 Contractor Self-Assessment of Cost Risk and 1.2.8 Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software .

Question source: RFP Section L.2.3 Page Limitations

Page number and paragraph header from source: Section 2.3, Page Limitations, pages 132-133

Question 15:

With respect to the following requirement: “There should be no more than (6) foldouts included in the proposal. Each foldout will count as one page for page count purposes.” We have the following questions:

1. Will the Government please confirm that this limitation only applies to Volume 1 Technical?

2. An IMS is requested for each Sample Task in Subfactor 1 as well as for Management Subfactor 3. Due to the length and size each IMS, can they be excluded from the page count and foldout limitations?

Answer 15: The foldout quantity notated in Section 2.3 applies to all volumes of the proposal. There will be no exceptions to the limitation of six (6) foldouts, to include sample task development. The offeror has to use their discretion to determine where they will use the foldouts during proposal development.

Question source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) RFP Section J, Attachment 1 – SOW, and System Performance Specification for Common Infrastructure Services (CIS) Subsystem dated 30 June 2016

Page number and paragraph header from source.

Question 16: Per our review of the solicitation documents there appears to be a disconnect between the CIS Statement of Work (Attachment 1of the RFP) and the Performance Specs retrieved from

AIMTC.

Statement of Work:

Page 1 of the CIS Statement of Work states that the CIS contractor “will be responsible for integrating software components delivered from multiple vendors into the CIS computing environment both in line with standard TI/APB modernizations and asynchronously”. The SOW page 4 denotes that CIS is intended to be initially delivered to support the fielding with the TI 18/APB 17 baseline.

Performance Specification:

The CIS Performance Spec includes requirements to develop and integrate multiple software elements which are included in existing programs of record:

1) Section 3.2.2 Cybersecurity Services (page 3-6)

2) Section 3.2.3.7 Common Reporting Services (page 3-10)

3) Section 3.2.3.9 Data Mediation and Translation Services (page 3-10)

4) Section 3.2.4.2 Reliability Monitoring and Management Services (page 3-13)

If it was the Navy’s intent to compete the development, maintenance and support for these four products/services, along with the CIS integration role then we believe that there are significant problems with the solicitation:

1) The hours included ceilings for the Engineering Services CLINs are not sufficient to complete development work of major subsystems. (Section B)

Answer 16A: The Government’s requirement for Engineering Services is defined in Section B of the solicitation and is sufficient to complete integration and development work of major subsystems.

2) RFP Sections L and M are significantly deficient in requesting, recognizing and evaluating experience and subject matter expertise in the areas of information assurance/cyber security, data recording, reliability management/monitoring and CORBA-AMQP message data mediation and translation.

Answer 16B: The solicitation, including the updated PSPEC and statement of work, includes adequate information to allow a qualified vendor to illustrate their ability to perform data recording, reliability management/monitoring and CORBA-AMQP message data mediation and translation.

Requested Clarifications to the Solicitation:

1) Please clarify that the intent of this Solicitation is to integrate the existing programs of record rather than to develop new solutions by updating the performance Specification.

Answer 16C: The SOW and PSPEC have been updated to include a table identifying developmental and non-developmental items.

2) We recommend that the specific product be identified similar to language used for ISMT on CIS Specification, page 3-11, line 512 where “ ISMT shall be integrated and hosted by the CIS Subsystem” for the following products:

a. Information Assurance (IA)

b. Digital Data Collection (DDCS)

c. Submarine Reliability Management System (SRMS)

d. Real Time Service Based Architecture (RTSBA)

Answer 16D: The SOW and PSPEC have been updated to include a table identifying developmental and non-developmental items.

3) In addition, we request that the GFI list (Attachment 2) be updated to include the subsystems listed above similar to the reference for the ISMT subsystem.

Answer 16E: This issue has been addressed via identification of the developmental and non-developmental items in the PSPEC and SOW.

4) Further, due to the complexity of this issue and the potential major impact to proposal development, we request that the window for additional questions to the RFP be extended beyond the current RFP to at least two weeks from the response to this question.

Answer 16F: The solicitation has been revised to extend the date for acceptance of Bidder Question to 10 February 2017.

Question source: RFP

Page number and paragraph header from source: Page 158 2.1.3 Subfactor 13 – Management Approach

Question 17: Please provide the PMS 425 Integrated Master Plan (IMP).

Answer 17: The GFI list has been revised to incorporate the PMS 425 IMP.