Draft_RFP_Q&A_Response_Packages_-_Batch_1.pdf

FBO POSTING

DATE

FBO Question

(Batch # ‐

Question #) DRAFT RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary) QUESTION Answer

6/2/2017 1‐001 NA For the HMI reviews will we need to travel to NSWCPD and/or NUWCNPT, or will end users travel to contractor facilities? ‐ This affects ODC/travel estimate.

Government end users will travel to contractor facilities. See revision to SOW paragraph 4.2.2 in final

RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐002 NA Are HMI reviews limited to participatory methods (focus groups, surveys, knowledge elicitation, cognitive walkthroughs, etc.), or will human subjects research be needed/preferred/allowed where we can collect and analyze performance and usability data on the HMI?

Reference revised SOW paragraph

4.2.2.4 in the final RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐003 NA Will there be a draft L&M released? No

6/2/2017 1‐004 4.1.3 Hardware Integration What platform configurations are required to be supported by the ECDIS SW 1.0 Production Build?

Platform configurations are provided within Appendix A of the

Navy ECDIS SRD. The minimum requirements for the hardware are provided within Appendix J.

6/2/2017 1‐005 4.1.3 Hardware Integration What is the plan to test and verify that all the platform configuration interfaces operate as expected?

See SOW paragraph 4.1.7.

6/2/2017 1‐006 4.1.3 Hardware Integration Will a schedule be provided to determine when ECDIS SW will be required to be installed on specific platforms?

No. See Section F for software build delivery dates.

6/2/2017 1‐007 4.1.3 Hardware Integration Is there a facility or facilities that would support System Level

Testing and External Interface Testing for all the platform configurations? If so where is the location and what is the availability to support integration and formal test events?

Yes. See SOW paragraph 4.1.7.

6/2/2017 1‐008 4.1.3 Hardware Integration Are all the platform configuration interfaces well documented in official IRS and IDD documents? Will these documents be provided as GFI under the contract?

See Navy ECDIS SRD Section 2 and its appendices for platform configuration interfaces . The IRS and IDD documents are contractor deliverables.

6/2/2017 1‐009 NA What is the estimated date that the RFP will be published? Q3/Q4 FY17

6/2/2017 1‐010 RFP Para 4.1.4 and RFP, Page 42 ‐ HQ E‐2‐0015 QUALITY

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA) (SEP

2009)

Para 4.1.4 states, "Quality Assurance

The Contractor shall have in place a software quality assurance program (e.g., ISO 9001, Capability Maturity

Model Integration (CMMI) Process)."

HQ E‐2‐0015 states, "Quality Management System

Requirements. The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality management system that, as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of

ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001‐2008 Quality Management

Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract. "

Must the contractor maintain a formally approved QA program such as ISO 9001/CMMI or is a program that "...as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ

9001‐2008 Quality Management Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract" acceptable?

HQ E‐2‐0015, Quality Management

System Requirements and SOW paragraph 4.1.4 have been revised to change ‘ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001‐

2008’ to ‘ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001‐

2015’ in the final RFP. At a minimum, the contractor must adhere to the requirements of the final RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐011 The first table in Section F states:

"The Contractor shall perform the work ... as follows:

CLIN/FROM/TO:

0002/Option Exercise/24 months after contract award

1001/Option Exercise/24 months after option exercise

2001/Option Exercise/24 months after option exercise "

On the last page of Section F is a clause that states:

"Item(s) 0002, 1001, and 2001 ‐ Engineering services shall be performed within 12 months after unconditional acceptance of the last unit of Item(s)

0001, 1001, and 2001."

The table and the clause seem to define two conflicting periods of performance. Please clarify.

See revised CLIN structure and delivery dates/PoPs in Section F of the final RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐012 Both Section C (SOW) and Section J (List of

Attachments) list the Navy ECDIS SRD as Version 1.0, dated 13 January 2016.

Is a later version available? Navy ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0, dated 13

January 2016, is correct and latest available.

Navy ECDIS Software Draft Solicitation N00024‐17‐R‐5216 ‐ Questions & Answers

6/2/2017 1‐013 The FBO announcement states: "No award will be made to any Offeror which does not possess a facility security clearance issued by the Defense Security

Service at the SECRET level. NAVSEA will initiate appropriate security clearance action for any apparent successful Offeror which does not already possess such clearance. The Government is not obligated to delay award pending security clearance of any Offeror ."

The SRD cites multiple classified documents as containing requirements that must be implemented in Navy ECDIS. And while the FBO announcement is clear on the need for a

SECRET clearance, the FBO announcement also suggests that it may be feasible for an offeror without a security clearance to be selected for award. Given the classified requirements, it seems a SECRET clearance is necessary in order to develop and submit a compliant technical proposal and a realistic cost proposal. Please clarify. As noted in GAO protest decision B‐

411153 dated May 22, 2015, "Solicitation requirement that an offeror possess a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals does not unduly restrict competition where the record shows that the requirement is reasonably related to the agency’s needs.

Security requirements remain unchanged.

6/2/2017 1‐014 Sections L and M are missing from the draft RFP. Will draft versions of Sections L and M be provided to

Offerors for review and comment prior to final RFP release?

No

6/2/2017 1‐015 Updated CDRL items (DD Form 1423s) were not provided with the draft RFP.

Will the latest DD Form 1423s be provided to Offerors prior to final RFP release?

No

6/2/2017 1‐016 SOW Section 4.1.6.9 (Software Delivery) states: "The

Contractor shall provide the executables, source code, APIs, and development tools for any Contractor developed software scripts and software applications not developed exclusively at private expense in accordance with DFARS 252‐227‐7017 ." DFARS

252.227‐7017 states: "development at private expense, either exclusively or partially, is the only basis for asserting restrictions ." Therefore, the SOW requirement is non‐compliant with the DFARS, by not providing appropriate consideration for software developed partially at private expense.

For conformance with DFARS 252.227‐7017, "not developed exclusively at private expense " should be changed to read

"not developed at private expense, either exclusively or partially ."

See revised SOW paragraph 4.1.6.9 in final RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐017 SOW Section 4.4 (Operator Manual) states that this manual shall be prepared in accordance with

"Technical Manual Change Request #160030‐000. "

The CDRL previously supplied for this item specifies that this manual shall be delivered 360 DAC.

a. "Technical Manual Change Request" should be "Technical

Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR)."

b. Will the TMCR be provided to Offerors for review and comment in advance of the final RFP release?

c. Operator Manual (CDRL A029) content is dependent on the functionality of the software, which will be subject to change for the 24 month duration of CLIN 0001. Therefore, the delivery schedule should be tied to the software development schedule, rather than in terms of DAC halfway through the CLIN PoP. We suggest the Operator Manual be delivered with the final software (CDRL A017).

A). Concur. TMCR means

"Technical Manual Contract

Requirements." and will be updated in SOW Section 4.4 of the final RFP. B). No. The TMCR will be included in final RFP release. C).

CDRL is required 360 days after contract award as Identified on

CDRL A017.

6/2/2017 1‐018 SOW Sect. 4.1.7, Para 2 states that the Contractor shall provide compatible hardware for testing and acceptance of the software.

Is this hardware for government or contractor use? SRD Appendix J identifies the minimum hardware requirements.

"Contractor shall utilize Navy ECDIS

SRD compatable hardware..." See revised SOW 4.1.7 in final RFP.

6/2/2017 1‐019 SOW Section 4.1.7, Software FQT, states: "As part of the Contractor’s FQT the software is to be tested by an independent agency such as the U.S. Naval Research

Laboratory, Stennis Space Center (NRL, SSC) to ensure the software can properly display of National

Geospatial‐Intelligence Agency (NGA) data products ."

Is the Contractor responsible for preparing the test procedures to be run by the independent agency, or are these tests prescribed/standardized by the government?

Besides NRL Stennis, what other agency's are approved for verifying proper display of NGA data?

For Contractor FQT scheduling purposes, how much time does NRL, Stennis require to perform the required tests?

The contractor is not responsible for test procedures by independent agencies such as NRL, Stennis.

6/2/2017 1‐020 SOW Section 4.1.5, SCCB Meetings, states: "The

Government shall schedule the SCCB meeting as needed to address SPIRs. The SCCBs shall be via teleconference and scheduled within five working days of SPIR entry ."

For planning/pricing purposes, what is the anticipated periodicity and duration of the SCCB Meetings?

Refer to SOW paragraph 4.1.5.

"The Government shall schedule the SCCB meeting as needed to address SPIRs. The SCCBs shall be via teleconference and scheduled within five working days of SPIR entry."

6/2/2017 1‐021 Section I, Clause 52.216‐10 INCENTIVE FEE (JUN 2011), paragraph (e) reads as follows: "Fee payable. (1) The fee payable under this contract shall be the target fee increased by .50 cents for every dollar that the total allowable cost is less than the target cost or decreased by .50 cents for every dollar that the total allowable cost exceeds the target cost. In no event shall the fee be greater than {Offeror Fill‐in} percent or less than zero (0) percent of the target cost ."

The .50 cent increase or decrease for every dollar less or more than the target cost implies that the share ratios for

CLIN 0001 in Section B should be 50/50. Please confirm.

Confirmed. Section B Note A(1) (iii) states: The share ratio for the CPIF portion of the fee structure is

50/50 (50% Government and 50%

Contractor) for both under‐runs and over‐runs.

6/2/2017 1‐022 In the Draft SRD previously provided, Section

3.13.1.1.12.1 states: "the Government's goal is to encourage Contractors to reuse software and component especially in cases where the Government has GPR or greater rights ."

Please provide a complete list of all software suitable for use and for which the government has GPR or greater.

See Competition Library in final

RFP

6/2/2017 1‐023 Section F includes FAR 52.247‐48, F.O.B. Destination ‐

Evidence of Shipment. This clause does not apply, since in Section E, inspection and acceptance are performed at destination. NAVSEA HQ F‐2‐0004, also included in the RFP, invokes the applicable FAR clause, 52.247‐34.

Please delete FAR 52.247‐48 from the RFP. Reference to FAR 52.247‐48 was removed from the final RFP

6/2/2017 1‐024 The following clauses included in the RFP only apply when contracting by negotiation: FAR 52.215‐11 (Price

Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data ‐

Modifications), FAR 52.215‐13 (Price Reduction for

Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data ‐ Modifications), and DFARS 252.215‐7000 (Pricing Adjustments).

Please remove the specified clauses. These clauses will remain in the solicitation. Modifications to the awarded contract will be contracted by negotiation.

6/2/2017 1‐025 DFARS 252.227‐7026 (Deferred Delivery of Technical

Data or Computer Software) is included in the RFP.

Will the final RFP specify which technical data is subject to deferred delivery?

DFARS 252.227‐7026 (Deferred

Delivery of Technical Data or

Computer Software) will be removed from the final RFP.