Q&A_Response_Package_-_Batch_3.pdf

DATE

FBO

BATCH/

QUESTION

NO. RFP REFERENCE/DISCUSSION (if necessary) QUESTION ANSWER

7/25/2017 3‐001 N/A ‐ General In the Q&A Batch 2 of the subject RFP, there were many indications that an updated RFP would be released, most notably the update of

Attachment J‐11. When can we expect to see this amendment to the

RFP?

Offerors should continue to monitor FBO for the forthcoming RFP amendment, which will include the revision to

Attachment J‐11. The proposal due date will be extended to 29 August 2017 in the amendment.

7/25/2017 3‐002 RFP clause HQ L‐2‐0016 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

(NAVSEA) (DEC 2006) states: "As part of the proposal, offerors shall submit an initial SDP that at a minimum addresses the requirements of Section C. The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation." RFP section L.3.1 (Solicitation Response Requirements) contradicts

HQ L‐2‐0016, by stating that the SDP (Volume II Appendix A) is limited to 10 pages. It is not possible to address the SDP requirements of Section C (as itemized in Section C.4.1.6.1, clause HQ C‐2‐0065, and the specifications referenced in those sections) within a 10‐page limit. For example, a compliant response to the HQ C‐2‐0065 requirement "Document all processes applicable to the system to be acquired, including the

Primary, Supporting, and Organizational life cycle processes as defined by IEEE Std. 12207:2008 " will require more than 10 pages. This is only one of many SDP requirements in RFP

Section C of similar scope and scale, including eight more such requirements in HQ C‐2‐0065 alone.

Please revise RFP clause L.3.1 to remove the SDP page limitation and be consistent with the standard NAVSEA clause.

HQ L‐2‐0016 (b) states: "The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation."

The SDP is included as Appendix A, and is not a part of the technical proposal page count. The RFP will be amended to increase the page limitation for the

Software Development Plan to 30 pages.

Section L.4.2 will be revised to change the requirement for Appendix A through G from 'a draft plan IAW the applicable

CDRL' to 'using the applicable CDRL as a guide'.

7/25/2017 3‐003 See question 1. RFP clause L.3.1 (Solicitation Response

Requirements) limits all other plans deliverable with Volume II to 5 pages each: the Program Management Plan (Appendix B), Human Systems Integration Plan (Appendix D), Open Systems

Management Plan (Appendix E), Quality Assurance Program

Plan (QAPP) (Appendix F), and Software Configuration

Management Plan (Appendix G). As with the SDP, it is not possible within this limit to deliver plans that are compliant with the requirements of Section C and the associated specifications.

For example, the QAPP must "document all of the information, instructions and documentation" necessary to implement

NAVSEA clause HQ‐E‐2‐0015, (which in turn invokes all requirements of ISO 9001), implement the "the quality program controls of HQ‐E‐2‐0014 ," and document the implementation of all "software quality provisions of IEEE/EIA 12207.2008, " as well as defining the "measurable quality objectives and the metrics by which they are to be measured " for Navy ECDIS. The content of each plan should be limited only by compliance with the requirements specified in RFP Section C, the CDRL, and the DID.

Please revise RFP clause L.3.1 to remove the 5‐page limitation for each deliverable plan.

The RFP requirement remains unchanged for Appendices B‐G.

7/25/2017 3‐004 The following NAVSEA documents are cited in the RFP as Navy

ECDIS requirements, but are not included in the RFP or the

Competition Library:

‐ PEO IWS / NAVSEA 05H Technical Review Manual, Version 2.0, 18 Dec 2009, cited in SOW C.3.2, C.4.1.7.3, and C.4.2.2.3.

‐ LEVEL OF EFFORT – ALTERNATE 1 (NAVSEA 5252.216‐9122),

cited in the NAVSEA VARIATION of FAR 52.217‐9 OPTION TO

EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, and in Section H.

Also, the RFP includes FAR 52.252‐2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED

BY REFERENCE, which provides a web link for access to

"NMCARS/NMCAG clauses & provisions ," but that link does not work.

Please provide the full text of all Navy documents cited in the solicitation that are not currently included in the RFP or the

Competition Library.

The RFP will be amended. PEO IWS /

NAVSEA 05H Technical Review Manual can be found and downloaded at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.a spx?id=640018

5252.216‐9122 will be incorporated by full text. NMCARS clauses & provisions can be found:

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/Pages/N

MCARS.aspx

7/25/2017 3‐005 4.1.6.1 Paragraph 4.1.6.1 of the RFP does not require bidders, as part of their responses, to provide full disclosure of manufacture or origin, data rights, and DADMS approval for each component. Will the

Government provide a format and specify a level of detail sufficient to ensure a fair comparison of solutions being evaluated?

Please refer to Section L.4.2.1, Subfactor

1: Data Rights, Software Rights, and

Patent Rights and Section M.2.1 Factor 1

Technical Volume II, Subfactor 1 Data

Rights, Software Rights, and Patent Rights for the format of necessary information.

Navy ECDIS Software Solicitation N00024‐17‐R‐5216 Questions

7/25/2017 3‐006 N/A ‐ General Can the Offeror propose additional labor categories as necessary to meet the requirements of the solicitation?

Yes, as noted in Attachment J‐11 labor categories listed are for example only, the

Offeror can provide actual categories included in the proposal. Offerors must propose the CPFF LOE labor mix for

Engineering Services hours specified in

Section L 4.4.2.1 (3)

7/25/2017 3‐007 N/A ‐ General What is the NAICS code for this procurement? The FBO notice has the NAICS code listed, but it is not included in the final Solicitation.

Can you please confirm the NAICS code?

The NAICS code for this procurement is

541512 ‐ Computer Systems Design

Services

7/25/2017 3‐008 4.2.2.4 Does the Government anticipate HMI reviews (focus groups) requiring Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight per SECNAVINST

3900.39D? Will the contractor be expected or required to submit an

IRB determination packet?

SECNAVINST 3900.39D is not being invoked in this solicitation, thus IRBs are not required.

7/25/2017 3‐009 4.2.2.4 If an IRB is required or advised for this effort, who will hold the IRB of record (e.g., IWS 6, NSWC PD, NUWC NPT)?

SECNAVINST 3900.39D is not being invoked in this solicitation, thus IRBs are not required.

7/25/2017 3‐010 L.3.1 Solicitation Response Requirements, page 101 The SDP has a page limit of 10 pages. Given the scale of this effort, will the Government consider making the page count unlimited?

The RFP will be amended to increase the page limitation for the Software

Development Plan to 30 pages.

7/25/2017 3‐011 L.3.1 Solicitation Response Requirements, page 101 The RFP states "Text line spacing shall be 1.5 lines." Does this mean

1.5 spaces above and below a single‐spaced paragraph, or that the paragraphs themselves must be set to 1.5 lines? Given the prescribed page limit in the Technical Approach, Factor 1, will the Government consider single line spacing and/or increase the page limit?

The paragraphs themselves must be set to 1.5 lines. The RFP will be amended to increase the page limitation for the

Software Development Plan to 30 pages.

Volume II, Technical Approach, overall is still limited to 50 pages plus the applicable appendices.

7/25/2017 3‐012 Section C, 4.1.7 What is the duration of the government’s Development Testing (DT) activities?

The RFP will be amended. Offerors can assume 90 days for the IWS Landbased DT which includes 30 days to correct priority

SPIRs. Assume 30 days for IWS At‐Sea DT followed by 30 days for COTF OT.

7/25/2017 3‐013 Section C, 4.1.7 What is the duration of the government’s Operational Testing (OT) activities?

The RFP will be amended. Offerors can assume 30 days for COTF OT.

7/25/2017 3‐014 For Subfactor 3.a (Personnel Experience), the Section L requirements and the Section M evaluation criteria are inconsistent. Section L states: "The Offeror shall demonstrate the employment of and availability of qualified personnel to perform the processes or procedures required to execute the contract. This includes demonstrating there are sufficient employees to support the required software programming, testing, and documentation generation." These requirements are unevaluated in Section M‐‐only the qualifications of the two

Key Personnel are evaluated.

Please revise Section M to evaluate the full range of required personnel experience and availability for Navy ECDIS, as stated in

Section L.

Section M .2.1.3 will be revised to align with Section L.4.2.3.

7/25/2017 3‐015 RFP Section, Sect C, Pg. 35, Clause HQC‐2‐0024 Commercial software incorporated into development may have an initial manufacturer warranty period that expires before final acceptance by the government. Does this clause only apply to initial warranties with a coverage period still active at the time of delivery?

If not, what liability is the Government asking the contractor to assume on widely used and available commercial software whose warranty may partially or fully expire during development phase?

Clause HQ C‐2‐0024 will be removed from this solicitation.

7/25/2017 3‐016 RFP Section C paragraph 4.0 Is the software delivered under CLIN 0001 and specified in SOW section 4 required to be ECDIS certified at delivery? If so, is the cost of ECDIS certification to be included in our costs for CLINS 0001, 1001, and 2001?

Successful completion of DT/OT will result in Navy ECDIS certification. The software is not required to have a commercial

ECDIS certification.

7/25/2017 3‐017 Section B, CLIN 0001

NOTE A ‐ INCENTIVE FEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLIN 0001

CLIN 0001 in Section B is described as a “Completion Task”. However, NOTE A ‐ INCENTIVE FEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLIN 0001 provides instructions that define a Cost‐Plus‐Incentive‐Fee/Level‐of‐Effort (CPIF‐

LOE) structure in that the Cost Incentive is based on the Target Hourly

Cost. Would the Government consider restructuring Note A to reflect a CPIF Completion Task?

Note A will be revised.

7/25/2017 3‐018 Section C, SOW Paragraph 4.1 Software Development The SOW states the Contractor shall develop and implement Anti‐

Tamper software protection measures. What Critical Program

Information or Critical Technology is identified for the ECDIS‐N program?

The Contractor is required per the SOW to develop and implement Anti‐Tamper software protection measures. There are no Critical Program Information or Critical

Technology identified for the ECDIS‐N program.

7/25/2017 3‐019 Section C, SOW Paragraph 4.1 Software Development Recognizing the Contractor is responsible for procuring development

Red Hat Linux licenses and running cybersecurity assessments, will the Navy be providing the hardened operating system or is this an additional deliverable required for the contractor?

The contractor shall lock down the Red

Hat Enterprise Linux in accordance with the Security Technical Implementation

Guide (STIG) as published by the Defense

Information Systems Agency (DISA).

7/25/2017 3‐020 Section L4.2 Volume 2, Subfactor 3 Management Approach

Paragraph (a)

The referenced paragraph identifies the Key Personnel as a Senior

Software Programmer and a Senior Program Manager. However, in the subsequent Key Personnel position descriptions, the Key

Personnel are identified as Senior Program Manager and a Senior

Software Systems Engineer. Please clarify whether one of the Key

Personnel positions is a Senior Software Programmer or a Senior

Software Systems Engineer.

SECTION L.4.2.3)a) will be revised. Key software position title will be changed to

Senior Software Engineer. Education &

Experience will be revised to "Bachelor's degree in science from an accredited institution, minimum ten years of experience in software development and programming, including three years or more supervisory/management experience.

7/25/2017 3‐021 Section L.4.2 Volume II, Subfactor 3 Management Approach

Paragraph (a)

The referenced paragraph establishes the Senior Software Systems

Engineer Key Personnel Education & Experience requirements as a

Bachelor's degree in software engineering from an accredited institution, minimum ten years of experience, including three years or more supervisory/management experience. Often for this type of project, a systems engineering or electrical engineering background can be more helpful for the Senior Software Systems Engineer, especially if they have significant experience in software development programs. Would the Government consider revising the Education &

Experience requirements to be a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, computer science, or math, and minimum ten years of software design and development experience, including three years or more supervisory/management experience?

SECTION L.4.2.3)a) will be revised. Key software position title will be changed to

Senior Software Engineer. Education &

Experience will be revised to "Bachelor's degree in science from an accredited institution, minimum ten years of experience in software development and programming, including three years or more supervisory/management experience.

7/25/2017 3‐022 ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1 Navy ECDIS 1419 (3.6.1.1.5.2) describes a magnetic heading input.

Can the Navy provide the message format and interface type for this data?

The magnetic heading information would either be provided in NMEA serial format(HDM, NMEA 0183 Ver 2.3 (SRD

Appendix C, Paragraph C.9) or within the

OD‐19 msg per NAVSSI‐B4.3‐IRS‐NAVDDX‐

Rev1 (SRD paragraph 2.2.2.1 Ref).

7/25/2017 3‐023 ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1 Does the Navy have any simulators that can be provided GFI for software development use?

No GFI/GFE simulators will be provided.

As per SECTION C SOW 4.1.7, the

Contractors will have access Government labs for platform integration and interface testing.

7/25/2017 3‐024 ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1 Navy ECDIS 1374 references the Overhaul of Surface Ships specification. This applies to hardware only. Can the Navy please describe the role the contractor has in meeting this requirement?

SRD Appendix J identifies the minimum hardware requirements for the software to operate on. If a Contractor were to submit a Request For Variance (RFV) for a hardware component, that component must meet this requirement.

7/25/2017 3‐025 ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1 Navy ECDIS 1363 (3.1.5.11.8.5.1) describes interfaces for submarines.

Can the Navy provide the TI/APB version requirements that must be supported? Can the Navy provide all GPB and IDL files that are required to be implemented?

The following TI/APBs are applicable: TI‐

14/APB‐13, TI‐14/APB‐15, TI‐16/APB‐17,

TI‐18/APB‐17, TI‐18/APB‐19. No GPBs and IDLs will be provided prior to award.

7/25/2017 3‐026 CDRL A001 Open Systems Management Plan

CDRL A004 Software Configuration Management Plan

CDRL A001 and CDRL A004 both reference DI‐MGMT‐80004A

Management Plan, which is a specification for a generic Management

Plan with several pages of requirements that must be addressed. The

CDRL DD Form 1423s do not provide any tailoring to eliminate those requirements. Many of these requirements are not relevant to the referenced CDRLs, would involve significant redundancy, and cannot be adequately addressed within the Appendix page limits. Will the

Government remove the requirement for DID compliance for the

Appendices Draft submissions?

SECTION L.4.2 will be revised to remove the requirement for DID compliances. The

DID was cited as guidance.

Change "The Offeror shall provide a draft

XXXX Plan IAW CDRL AXXX as Appendix

X." to " The Offeror shall provide XXXX

Plan as Appendix X. CDRL Axxx may be used as guidance."

7/25/2017 3‐027 CDRL A002 Human Systems Integration Program Plan

CDRL A003 Quality Assurance Program Plan

CDRL A008 Software Development Plan

CDRL A025 Program Management Plan

The subject CDRLs reference Data Item Descriptions (DID) with several pages of requirements that must be addressed. The CDRL DD Form

1423s do not provide any tailoring to eliminate those requirements.

These requirements cannot be adequately addressed within the

Appendix page limits. Will the Government remove the requirement for DID compliance for the Appendices Draft submissions?

SECTION L.4.2 will be revised to remove the requirement for DID compliances. The

DID was cited as guidance.

Change "The Offeror shall provide a draft

XXXX Plan IAW CDRL AXXX as Appendix

X." to " The Offeror shall provide XXXX

Plan as Appendix X. CDRL Axxx may be used as guidance."

7/25/2017 3‐028 CLIN 1003, Section 4.1.6.9 and Note H:

Note: This question was asked presolicitation and the response was "See revision to RFP" ‐ ‐ The question in column G is a follow up as the RFP appears to have not answered the original question.

With reference to CLIN 1003, Note H states, "...prices for conversion of the deliverable data rights to GPR shall be included in CLIN 1003."

Somewhat similarly, Section 4.1.6.9 states, "The Contractor shall provide a Government Purpose Rights (GPR) for all Contractor developed software." However, 10 USC 2320 (a)(2)(H) provides that a contractor (or a prospective contractor) may not be required, as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for the award of a contract‐‐

(i) to sell or otherwise relinquish to the United States any rights in technical data .... or

(ii) to refrain from offering to use, or from using, an item or process to which the contractor is entitled to restrict rights

Please clarify Section 4.1.6.9, CLIN 1003 and Note H, its reference to

Attachment J‐8 and the scope of the requirement of the RFP regarding Government Purpose Rights. Is GPR required? If so, to what?

While Gov't response indicates revisions to RFP answer the prior question, Note H continues to state that "Rather, for each technical data/computer software deliverable which is being offered with less than GPR, prices for conversion of the deliverable data right sto GPR shall be included in CLIN 1003." And 4.1.6.9 continues to state, "The

Contractor shall provide a Government Purpose Rights (GPR) license for all Contractor developed software." Please explain how this insistence on a demand for GPR conforms to 10 USC 2320.

RFP will be amended to change 'shall' statement to "the Government desires' in

SOW 4.1.6.9 and Note H.

7/25/2017 3‐029 CLIN 1003, Section 4.1.6.9, Section 8 and Note H :

Note: This question was asked presolicitation and the response was "See revision to RFP" ‐ ‐ The question in column G is a follow up as the RFP appears to have not answered the original question.

10 USC 2377 mandates a preference for commercial items including market research and defining requirements so that commercial items may be procured. Has the Government's market research indicated commercial ECDIS computer software licenses available with

Government Purpose Rights? If so, please provide examples.

While Gov't response indicates revisions to RFP answer the prior question, no change to requirements, such as an exclusion of the GPR requirements to commercial software, or commercial item market research information was located in RFP revisions. Issue remains unclear.

The Government requirement has been delineated to allow modified COTS to be provided as SW solutions. As stated in

SOW 8.0, the Government desires at least

GPR.

7/25/2017 3‐031 CLIN 1003 and Section 8:

Note: This question was asked presolicitation and the response was "See revision to RFP" ‐ ‐ The question in column

G is a follow up as the RFP appears to have not answered the original question.

Section 8 states, "Where less than GPR are being provided to the

Government, the Government requests that the Offeror provide the price of buy‐out options for GPR, and/or all software licensing costs in support of ship and shore installations." Please clarify the scope/tasks relevant to software 'in support of' ship and shore installations. Please explain the technical baseline, such as existing

OS, etc. applicable to the referenced 2,500 (ship) and 1,700 (shore) applications and what portions of such technical baseline will be GFE.

Please clarify this Section 8 language relative to CLIN 1003, in that

CLINS 1003 purports to mandate GPR, making the 'or all software licensing costs' alternative inapplicable.

Section 8 further states, "Where less than GPR is provided, CLIN 1003 shall include all of the licensing cost/fees to field the Navy ECDIS

Software Production Build on all vessels and shore commands."

Please clarify the software scope/tasks relevant to fielding the production build on all vessels and shore commands, including as noted above, the applicable technical baseline and portions provided as GFE, if any. While Gov't response indicates revisions to RFP answer the prior question, no change to requirements or responsive information was located in RFP revisions. Issue remains unclear.

RFP will be amended to change 'shall' to

"the Government desires' in SOW 4.1.6.9 and Note H. SOW 8.0 will be revised to clarify the buy out options for GPR OR software licensing costs. The Offer is to clarify in their proposal whether the license fees are per node or a lump sum.

7/25/2017 3‐032 M.2.1 states that the Government will evaluate Patent Rights. What information in the proposal and what criteria will the

Government use in evaluating patent rights consistent with 10 USC

1498?

See RFP amendment. Reference to patent rights will be removed from Sections L&M

7/25/2017 3‐033 The SRD version Change 1 provided with the RFP contains a

Revision History and content changes indicated in red.

However, not all changes from the original draft SRD are so indicated. For example, p.109 (PDF page 123) contains a new paragraph 3.12.4.5 which is not listed or marked as a change.

The SRD PDF file is security‐restricted to disable the Content

Copying, Page Extraction, and Document Assembly functions. As a result, Offerors cannot compare the final SRD to the previous version to determine the differences.

Could the Government issue an SRD with the Content Copying security restriction removed, to provide Offerors with the ability to identify all changes between the Draft SRD and the Final SRD?

No additional SRD documents will be provided prior to award.

CLIN 1003, Section 4.1.6.9 and 8 and Note H do not appear to exclude applicability to commercial computer software, but do not appear aligned with DoD regulations/policy. DFARS 227.7202‐3 provides that

(a) The Government shall have only the rights specified in the license under which the commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation was obtained. and (b) If the

Government has a need for rights not conveyed under the license customarily provided to the public, the Government must negotiate with the contractor to determine if there are acceptable terms for transferring such rights. The specific rights granted to the

Government shall be enumerated in the contract license agreement or an addendum thereto. Furthermore, DFARS 227.7202‐1(c) provides, "Offerors and contractors shall not be required to—(1)

Furnish technical information related to commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation that is not customarily provided to the public except for information documenting the specific modifications made at Government expense to such software or documentation to meet the requirements of a

Government solicitation; or (2) Relinquish to, or otherwise provide, the Government rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation except for a transfer of rights mutually agreed upon." Please clarify CLIN 1003, Section 4.1.6.9 and

8 and Note H do not pertain to commercial computer software or explain compliance with the above.

While Gov't response indicates revisions to RFP answer the prior question, no change to requirements, such as an exclusion of the GPR requirements to commercial software, or commercial item market research information was located in RFP revisions. Nor, per FAR

52.252‐5 added to Section L, has any indication been included that there is an authorized deviation to the DFARS. Issue remains unclear.

RFP will be amended to change 'shall' statement to "the Government desires' in

SOW 4.1.6.9 and Note H.

CLIN 1003, Section 4.1.6.9, Section 8 and Note H :

Note: This question was asked presolicitation and the response was "See revision to RFP" ‐ ‐ The question in column G is a follow up as the RFP appears to have not answered the original question.

3‐0307/25/2017

7/25/2017 3‐034 HQ L‐2‐0016 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NAVSEA) (DEC

2006), page 95 L.31 Solicitation Response Requirements, table on page 101

With respect to the upcoming RFP amendment concerning page limits: As written, the RFP is unclear on the page count of the

Software Development Plan (SDP). Section HQ L‐2‐0016 notes that the SDP "shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation," while Section L.31 Solicitation Response

Requirements imposes a 10 page limit on the SDP (Appendix A).

Please advise on the discrepancy.

HQ L‐2‐0016 (b) states: "The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation."

The SDP is included as Appendix A, and is not a part of the technical proposal page count. However, Appendix A (the SDP) does have an independent page count.

The RFP will be amended to increase the

Appendix A page limitation for the

Software Development Plan to 30 pages.

7/25/2017 3‐035 Section C.4.1.6.9 Software Delivery states: “The Contractor shall provide a Government Purpose Rights (GPR) license for all

Contractor developed software .”

Please confirm that this applies only to software developed under this contract .

The RFP will be revised to state: "The

Government needs and it is desired that the Contractor provide Government

Purpose Rights (GPR) license for all

Contractor developed software".

7/25/2017 3‐036 Follow up to Q&A Batch 2‐ 2‐006 Please provide a list of the simulation tools and equipment in each

Government lab that will be available for testing.

NSWC PD has tools to simulate the following interfaces: synchro, ICD‐150, serial and network NMEA, OD‐17, OD‐19, autopilot, RDS COMMS and analog Radar.

NUWC Newport, RI has simulation capability for all SWFTS TI/APB interfaces to VMS. SOW Section 4.1.7 will be revised.

7/25/2017 3‐037 N/A ‐ General Are Offerors permitted to propose solutions for NAVY ECDIS that execute in a Virtual Machine (VM) environment on a Linux platform, or are all NAVY ECDIS components required to run natively in a Linux environment without any middleware? If the Government requires or prefers all NAVY ECDIS components to operate in a native Linux solution, will this be clarified in the RFP?

Refer to Navy ECDIS SRD Paragraph 3.5.

Design. The software shall be designed to meet all requirements running natively on a single workstation without having to rely on a second workstation for supporting processes.

7/25/2017 3‐038 N/A ‐ General Are Offerors permitted to propose solutions for NAVY ECDIS that execute within a Wine environment (http://www.winehq.com)?

No, refer to Navy ECDIS SRD Paragraph

3.5.1.1. The virtual machine environment

shall run on a Linux host system.

7/25/2017 3‐039 N/A ‐ General May Offerors propose use of software components that are not currently on the Software Approved Products List (SAPL). If use of non‐approved components is not allowed, is an approval process available for adding non‐approved components to the SAPL? If so, will the additional time required to obtain such approval need to be factored into the Offeror's IMS?

This solicitation does not restrict the use of software components to those on the

Software Approved Products List (SAPL).

The IMS shall be provided in accordance with L4.2.3 Subfactor 3 paragraph (f).

7/25/2017 3‐040 4.1 Software Development Will the use of a commercial codebase negatively impact evaluation with respect to cybersecurity, anti‐tamper protections, etc.?

The use of a commercial codebase will not itself negatively impact evaluation with respect to cybersecurity, anti‐tamper protections, etc.

7/25/2017 3‐041 4.1 Software Development If established/well‐known open source software that may have foreign contributions is used, to what extent must the Offeror guarantee the source code fulfill cyber security requirements (free from defect and vulnerability)?

The prime contractor is responsible for fulfilling cyber security requirements

(free from defect and vulnerability) regardless of the originator of the source code. See SOW 4.1.

7/25/2017 3‐042

Software Requirements Document

The SRD references multiple interfaces through Context Diagrams.

What Interface Description Documents (IDDs) are available to support estimating the effort to implement these interfaces? If IDDs are not available, what IDDs is the contractor responsible for developing and delivering?

No IDDs referenced in the SRD will be provided prior to award. The contractor will be responsible for preparing and submitting the IDD IAW SOW 4.1.6.8.

7/25/2017 3‐043

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS Requirements 1480‐1484 (3.11) are hardware specific requirements. Can the Navy identify the requirement applicability to the software contractor?

Navy ECDIS Requirements 1480‐1484

(3.11) are for hardware and not applicable to software.

7/25/2017 3‐044

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS 1407‐1409 (3.6.1.1.4.4 – 3.6.1.1.4.6) provides three technical manual references. Can the Navy provide these sources?

These documents will not be provided prior to award.

7/25/2017 3‐045

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS 1383 (3.5.6) provides a latency requirement between workstations. However, the network configuration (beyond a block diagram) is not provided. Can the Navy please provide the networking details (switch models, configuration data) for which this requirement will be tested?

The NAVY ECDIS 1383 (3.5.6) latency requirement is between workstations using a shipboard representative network switch (1GB as per SRD Appendix J), and will be used for baseline evaluation of the system requirements. The contractor will not be responsible for additional latency added by shipboard networks.

7/25/2017 3‐046

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS 1377 (3.5.1) requires a virtual machine environment. Is the contractor responsible for procuring, configuring, and delivering the VM?

Yes, the contractor is responsible for procuring, configuring, and delivering the

VM software IAW SOW 4.1.6.9.

7/25/2017 3‐047

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS 1352 (3.1.5.11.7) requires the display of an IETM. Can the

Navy provide the format and display requirements of the technical manuals?

The format and display requirements are provided in TMCR No. SNIPP‐160030‐000, 18 Dec 2015.

7/25/2017 3‐048

ECDIS SRD Rev 1.0 with Change 1

Navy ECDIS 258 (3.1.5.3.2.3) requests the ability to export data based on who is receiving it. Can the Navy identify the recipients of data and the required coordinate system such that the effort can be estimated?

See Navy ECDIS 258 (3.1.5.3.2.3). The export data shall be in geographic and transverse coordinates regardless of the identity of the recipient.