Attachment_J-S1_-_Question_Submittal_Form_-_Government_Responses.pdf

Attachment J-S1 - OTH-WS RFP N00024-17-R-5430 Question Submittal Form

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question Government Response

Draft RFP - 1 DRFP 1 The last sentence states that, "in order to be considered for award, the existing system must meet either missile range or SWaP-C requirements". The parenthetical statement says, "(i.e., an existing system that does not meet both the missile range and SWaP-C

TLRD requirements will not be eligible for award)." These statements seem to be contradictory. In the parenthetical statement, was the intent to say "(i.e., an existing system that does not meet either the missile range or SWaP-C TLRD requirements will not be eligible for award)."?

The parenthetical statement was part of the Draft RFP and will be removed from the formal RFP.

To further clarify, an existing system must meet at least one of these two requirements to be eligible for award.

Draft RFP - 2 DRFP N/A What date is the anticipated award date of contract? In accordance with the Notional Schedule presented during Industry Day the Government plans to make an award, assuming no discussions, in November 2017. In the event that the Government chooses to enter discussions, the notional award date is March 2018.

Draft RFP - 3 DRFP N/A On what date will a complete draft RFP be released for industry comments? The Government will not be releasing a complete Draft RFP.

Draft RFP - 4 DRFP 15 Will option CLIN 0108 OTH-WS Improvement be exercisable at initial contract award? The Government may exercise CLIN 0108 at its discretion any time before the date listed in FAR

52.217-7.

Draft RFP - 5 Synopsis N/A To facilitate transfer of classified materials, will the Contractors be permitted to hand transfer classified materials to and from the address listed in the Synopsis on FBO.GOV?

Contractors will be permitted to hand transfer classified materials. The formal RFP will include instructions regarding hand delivery of proposals.

Draft RFP - 6 DRFP, Model Contract, Section C, HQ C-2-0063 84 Please provide a listing of Navy Support Contractors (and their POCs) that the Government plans to use for the services listed in HQ C-

2-0063 so that the Contractors responding to this solicitation have an opportunity to establish Non-Disclosure Agreements with them.

Currently, there are zero (0) Support Contractors providing the support in accordance with clause

HQ C-2-0063. In the event that the Government enters into a contract for support services all

Offerors will be notified.

Draft RFP - 7 DRFP 72 Will the Contractor be allowed to offer improvements beyond range or SWaP-C to meet all TLRD requirements? No.

Draft RFP - 8 DRFP N/A How will the Navy evaluate contractor funded risk reduction efforts in Section M? The formal RFP will include all evaluation criteria and basis for award in Sections L and M.

Draft RFP - 9 Industry Day Brief N/A Will the Government run their own (Modeling and Simulation) M&S to validate Contractor inputs? The Government will not run an independent M&S activity to validate the Offeror's M&S inputs. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide evidence that the M&S tools they are using have been validated.

Draft RFP - 10 DRFP 0 How will the government provide initial assessments of the proposals during the discussion period after initial submittal? The Government intends to make award on the basis upon initial proposals, without conducting discussions. If discussions are required, the Government will follow the procedures in FAR 15.306.

Draft RFP - 11 DRFP 0 How will the government be requesting a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) following discussions? The Government intends to make award based upon initial proposals, without conducting discussions. If discussions and FPRs are required, the Government will follow the procedures in FAR

15.306 and 15.307.

Draft RFP - 12 DRFP, Model Contract, Section B Pages 2 - 11, CLINs

0001 - 0099

CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0010, 0011AA, 0012 and

0099 are all listed as Options. Please clarify that only CLINs 0001, 0008 and 0013 are expected to be awarded with the initial Contract

Award.

All CLINs that are not listed as 'option' in Section B will be awarded as part of the base contract award. CLIN 0099 should not be an option CLIN and will be included in the base contract award.

Draft RFP - 13 DRFP, Model Contract, Section B Pages 4 and 53, CLIN 0005

If all Data is NSP, what is the purpose of Note C? The Government will remove Note C.

Draft RFP - 14 DRFP 9 Enhanced Data Rights, CLIN 0011. Please elaborate on the government’s requirements and expectations for this CLIN. Within the formal RFP, the Government anticipates utilizing Sections L and M Enhanced Data Rights language similar to that found within the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) Solicitation -

N00024-15-R-5370.

Draft RFP - 15 DRFP Pages 9 and 53 Will contractors be required or encouraged to provide NAVSEA greater rights in data/software (enhanced rights) than specified in the

DFARS? If so, discuss how this will impact the evaluation criteria. [CLIN 0011, CLIN 0011AA, Notes B and C]

Within the formal RFP, the Government anticipates utilizing Sections L and M Enhanced Data Rights language similar to that found within the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) Solicitation -

N00024-15-R-5370.

Draft RFP - 16 DRFP, Model Contract, Section B and I (52.216-11) Pages 10, 16, 23, 30, 37, 45, 52 and

FAR does not prohibit Fee on Travel and Other Direct Cost (ODC) or Cost Reimbursable CLINs with for-profit businesses, please discuss the Navy's rationale for, and evidence supporting, marking these CLINs as Cost Reimbursable only.

The RFP will prohibit profit/fee on the travel/ODC CLINs. These CLINs will remain Cost Only (no profit/fee) CLINs.

Draft RFP - 17 DRFP 11 CLIN 0099 Please provide Latest Option Exercise Date CLIN 0099 should not be an option CLIN and will be included in the base contract award.

Draft RFP - 18 DRFP, Model Contract, Section B Pages 11 and 53, CLIN 0099

Note I states that orders for CLIN 0099 may be placed and the pricing shall be established by the parties on an FFP basis. Is the

Contractor to provide pricing for this CLIN in the response to this Solicitation? If so, given that there are no requirements listed in the

Section C SOW for this CLIN 0099, what is the basis for the pricing?

The Contractor shall not provide pricing for CLIN 0099. Provisioned Item Orders (PIO) may be placed against this line item and the pricing thereof shall be established by the parties to the contract on a firm fixed price basis prior to the award of each order. See HQ C-1-0003 ITEM(S)

0099 - PROVISIONED ITEMS ORDERS (NAVSEA) (APR 2015).

Draft RFP - 19 DRFP 15 OTH-WS Improvement, Option CLIN 0108, SOW 3.5. What is the first production lot that requires full compliance with the TLRD? The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to deliver test assets within 730 days of option exercise to support live fire testing.

Draft RFP - 20 DRFP, Model Contract, Section B Page 15, CLIN

OTH-WS improvement effort involves development and flight test, this type of activity fits better the definition of a Cost Plus Contract

Type per the FAR. Please update CLIN 0108 to a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract Type.

Comment noted. The contract type for the Improvement CLIN will remain FFP.

Draft RFP - 21 DRFP 52 Note A, 1st para, last sentence - "The Government will determine the quantity of the base CLINs 0001 and 01 at award" Does CLINs

"01" refer to all CLINs ending in "01"?

The language in Note A will be updated to remove reference to specific CLIN numbers. To further clarify, the Government will determine the quantity to be procured for all stepladder CLINs at award or option exercise.

Draft RFP - 22 DRFP 53 Note E says maximum order quantity of 671. The sum of all EM CLINs through FY24 is 349. Please provide rationale for a the derivation of a maximum order of 671.

The language in Note E will be updated to state that regardless of step ladder quantities for the

Encanistered Missiles and Improved Encanistered Missiles provided in Section B, the Government expects to procure no more than 320 missiles across all fiscal years.

Draft RFP - 23 DRFP 62 Para 2.2 - Should this reference be to Section 2.1, instead of Sec 2.2? Yes.

Draft RFP - 24 DRFP 62 Paragraph 2.1 lists documents that are required, Item 4 and Item 7 are the same document with different revisions. Which is applicable?

The Government will remove Item 4 in the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 25 DRFP, SOW section Page 62 para 2.1 RCC-106-01 is listed as a mandatory document with an issue date of 12 October 2007. We assume the document number is RCC-106-

07 to agree with the specified issue date. Is this assumption correct?

The Government will update the title for item eight (8) of the Mandatory Documents to read:

Range Commanders Council Standard (RCCS) RCC-106-07 (12 October 2007)

Draft RFP - 26 DRFP 63 Please confirm that CDRLs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004 and 0005 only apply to CPFF or Cost type CLINs. The CDRLs that will be released with the formal RFP contain additional information regarding which

CLINs are applicable.

Draft RFP - 27 DRFP 63 Will the contractors be allowed to proposed a tailored CWBS to fulfil the requirements of Contract CDSR Plan (CDRL 0003)? The CWBS CDRL allows for tailoring.

Draft RFP - 28 DRFP Page 63-4, Para

3.1.4

Section 3.1.4 states that all items posted on the Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) are considered delivered for purposes of the

DFARS. This includes drafts of deliverables that are not final versions. Discuss the intent of this requirement and the apparent conflict with DoD policy which utilizes CDRLs to provide a standardized method of clearly and unambiguously delineating the Government's minimum essential data needs and to group all of the data requirements in a single place rather than have them scattered throughout the solicitation or contract.

All CDRL items posted to the IDE, including drafts of deliverables that are not final versions, shall be considered delivered for purposes of the DFARS data rights clauses 252.227.7013, 7014, and 7017

(and subject to the same rights asserted for final deliveries). However, these non-final versions shall not constitute acceptance for purposes of Inspection and Acceptance requirements or the DFARS data rights clauses 252.227.7013, 7014, and 7017.

Draft RFP - 29 DRFP, SOW section Page 64, para 3.2.1 Para 3.2 identifies only a single design system, AUTOCAD, as the acceptable file format. Industry uses multiple design tools which can export data in standard formats for import into AUTOCAD, such acceptable formats are not identified. We recommend specifying acceptable industry data exchange standards such as STEP, IGES or Parasolid in this SOW requirement.

Comment noted.

Draft RFP - 30 DRFP 69 TLRD Para 1.3.3 and DRFP Para 3.3.2.2 - Is the IM-T required to have an Inert Warhead? Can the IM-T configuration add Telemetry and Flight Termination equipment in the same volume in place of the tactical warhead? Is the IM-T required to have an inert fuze vice no fuze?

The Government requires an inert warhead. The formal RFP will be updated to address the requirement for a live fuze.

Draft RFP - 31 DRFP 69 Para 3.3.3 - Can the Contractor assume the use of existing mission support equipment that is currently in use at USN test facilities to reduce USN cost?

No.

Draft RFP - 32 DRFP, SOW section Page 70 para 3.3.6 CDRL 0038 should be CDRL 0040 for Training Classes (0038 is read ahead material for MMRs). Comment noted. The RFP will be updated.

Draft RFP - 33 DRFP 79 HQ C-2-0014 states "If the contractor's proposal, or a portion thereof, is incorporated into the proposal at award…" recommend this be changed to"…incorporated into the contract at award…"

Comment noted. The RFP will be updated.

Draft RFP - 34 DRFP 81 Would the government provide its internal guidance when/how clause HQ C-2-0037 is to be used in RFPs and discuss its rationale for including the clause in this OTH RFP?

The Government will remove this clause.

Draft RFP - 35 DRFP, Model Contract, Section E Page 99 52.211-8 requires a table to be filled in by the Contracting Officer. Will this be updated in a subsequent release of the draft RFP? The Government will remove FAR clauses 52.211-8 and 52.211-8 Alt III.

Draft RFP - 36 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 112 52.211-11 requires the Contracting Officer to fill in the blank for the percentage of Liquidated Damages per calendar day. Will this be updated in a subsequent release of the draft RFP?

The Government will remove this clause.

Draft RFP - 37 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 112-3 Recommend deleting 52.215-11, -13, -20 and -21. Per FAR 15.403- 1(b)(1), given this is based on a competition, Cost and Pricing Data are not required.

Comment noted. The clause will remain in RFP.

Draft RFP - 38 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 113 Please replace 52.225-8 with 252.225-7013 as it is more appropriate for DoD Contracts. Comment noted. The RFP will be updated.

Draft RFP - 39 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 115 252.204-7000 is subject to broad and varying interpretations. Please define "sensitive and inappropriate" and provide a definition of

"contractor's organization" that is specific to the program itself.

The Government will not provide further definition for terms contained in DFARS 252.204-7000.

Draft RFP - 40 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 115 Recommend deleting 252.204-7009, as it is not applicable to this solicitation/contract as the scope of contemplated work is not to perform "services that include support for the Government's activities related to safeguarding covered defense information and cyber incident reporting" as prescribed in 204.7304.

Comment noted. The clause will remain in RFP.

Draft RFP - 41 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 115 252.204-7012 definition of Covered Defense Information (CDI) is acknowledged by the writers of the rule to be overly expansive and

Contracting Officers are to provide definition of CDI for their program(s). Please provide a program specific definition of CDI.

The Government will not provide further definition for terms contained in DFARS 252.204-7012.

Draft RFP - 42 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 115 Recommend deleting 252.209-7009. Inclusion of this clause precludes the winning bidder from bidding on any additional work for this product line, which would limit the Government's ability to conduct a fair and open competition later.

Comment noted. The clause will be removed from RFP.

Draft RFP - 43 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 116 Recommend deleting 252.246-7001. DFARS 246.708 states that warranties on technical data should only be obtained by the government when practicable and cost effective. The following should be considered by the Contracting Officer before inserting this clause: a) The likelihood that correction or replacement of the nonconforming data, or price adjustment, will not give adequate protection to the government; and b) the effectiveness of the additional remedy as a deterrent against furnishing non-conforming data. In addition, the factors listed in FAR 46.703 shall be considered by the Contracting Officer to determine if the warranty is appropriate; 2) Contractor does not consider the added cost to the program for the broader protection or the longer period of liability required by this clause to be in the Government's best interests.

Other inspection and warranty provisions of the solicitation/contract already provide the Government adequate protections. Per FAR

46.702 (c), the benefits to be derived from a warranty must be commensurate with the cost of the warranty to the Government.

Comment noted. The clause will remain in the RFP.

Draft RFP - 44 DRFP, Model Contract, Section I Page 116 Recommend deleting 252.246-7006. None of the FAR clauses related to warranty of the hardware is in this Solicitation. Please remove.

Comment noted. The clause will be removed from RFP.

Draft RFP - 45 DRFP, Model Contract, Section K Page 150 Please provide rationale for Commercial Derivatives clause 252.225- 7010. Does the Government foresee a Commercial Derivative meeting the requirements, both classified and unclassified, of this RFP?

252.225-7010 is required IAWS DFARS 225.7003-5(b). The Government will not speculate on potential OTH-WS solutions.

Draft RFP - 46 DRFP, Model Contract, Section K Page 152 Recommend deleting 52.223-1. This clause is only required for USDA items and is not applicable to Missile products. Comment noted. The clause will remain in RFP.

Draft RFP - 47 DRFP, Model Contract, Section K Page 156 Recommend deleting 252.209-7003. It is for solicitations to institutions of higher education and should not apply to any Contractor bidding on this effort.

Comment noted. The clause will remain in the RFP in accordance with DFARS 204.1202.

Draft RFP - 48 DRFP, Model Contract, Section K Page 156 252.216-7008 is to be inserted in RFPs containing 252.216-7003. As DFAR 252.216-7003 is not contained, herein, 252.219-7008 is not applicable. Recommend deleting 252.216-7008.

Comment noted. The clause will remain in the RFP in accordance with DFARS 204.1202.

Draft RFP - 49 TLRD 0 Is the government appropriately setup to receive and evaluate data passed through OPNAV N89? No. The Government will not accept proposals that include documents that are classified above the SECRET level.

Draft RFP - 50 TLRD 1 Request the government provide a copy of the security classification guide referenced in the DD-254, to ensure RFP responses are properly classified, marked, and controlled.

The Government will provide the security classification guide referenced in the DD254 with the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 51 TLRD 3 Para. 3.1.2 - Against what common scenario(s) will the OTH-WS be evaluated (e.g. LCS/FF vs. Capital Warship, LCS/FF vs. Capital

Warship SAG, etc.)?

The scenarios the Government will review are only LCS/FF vs. Fast Attack Craft, and LCS/FF vs.

Capital Warship

Draft RFP - 52 TLRD 1 Para. 1.3.1. - What IR sensor counter measures will the OTH-WS be evaluated against? The Government intends to perform an evaluation of performance in the presence of counter measures based on the Offeror's missile performance capabilities.

Draft RFP - 53 TLRD 3 Para. 3.1.5 - Will there be a requirement for a land attack mode? No.

Draft RFP - 54 TLRD 3 Para. 3.1.2. - Recommend changing seeker attributes to represent weapon system requirements. (e.g. Weapons System Probability of Mission Kill > x. Weapon System Probability of Collateral Damage < y.)

Comment noted. TLRD paragraph 3.1.2 will remain unchanged.

Draft RFP - 55 DRFP 0 How will weapons systems currently in US inventory be given credit for having already passed safety and effectiveness certifications and trials?

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 56 DRFP 0 How will weapons systems currently in US inventory be given credit for having existing logistic and operational infrastructure? All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 57 Industry Day Define and describe evaluation approach regarding the term "operational relevancy." All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 58 Section M n/a Will NAVSEA allow a bidder to include government furnished property which will be consumed under the contract? No.

Draft RFP - 59 Section M n/a If NAVSEA allows a bidder to include consumable government furnished property, since FAR 52.245-9 doesn't directly address consumables, will the adjustment to the bidder's total evaluated price be the current acquisition value?

No. See response to question 58.

Draft RFP - 60 Section M n/a If NAVSEA allows a bidder to include consumable government furnished property and the evaluated price is not the current acquisition value, will the adjustment to the bidder's total evaluated price be the acquisition value at time of purchase?

No. See response to question 58.

Draft RFP - 61 Section M n/a If NAVSEA allows a bidder to include consumable government furnished property and the evaluated price is neither the current acquisition value nor the acquisition value at time of purchase, how will NAVSEA account for the value of the government furnished property in the total evaluated price?

No. See response to question 58.

Draft RFP - 62 Industry Day/M none Will the government favorably evaluate early delivery? No.

Draft RFP - 63 Industry Day: DoD Source Selection Procedures Dated

31 March 2016, Appendix B

Will any Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) considerations be applied? If so, what are these considerations? No.

Draft RFP - 64 Draft RFP Section B 9 Please define "Enhanced Data Rights." Where limited right assertions are made by an Offeror, Enhanced Data Rights would revise those limited rights data to either Government Purpose Rights, or Unlimited Rights.

Draft RFP - 65 Section B CLIN 0011 9 Please confirm that option CLIN 0011 will not be included in the total evaluated price? The firm-fixed price for Enhanced Data Rights will be incorporated into the Total Evaluated Price.

Draft RFP - 66 Draft RFP Section C; 2.1 Mandatory Docs 62 Please confirm that MIL-STD-882 Rev D (10 February 2000) is the correct revision of MIL-STD-882 to be used? Mil-STD 882 Rev E (11 May 2012) is the correct document.

Draft RFP - 67 RFP pg. 61 CLIN0011 - Unlimited / Govt

Purpose Rights

Are you asking to price unlimited rights? Can this be separately priced? Within the formal RFP, the Government anticipates utilizing the same Data Rights approach similar to that found within the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) Solicitation - N00024-15-R-5370.

Draft RFP - 68 RFP pg. 64 3.2 Systems Engineering Contractor PIDS at submittal or contract award? Full specs after award? Section L of the formal RFP will establish proposal requirements. The PIDS will be required as part of proposal submittal, and will be a contract attachment at award.

Draft RFP - 69 RFP pg. 64 3.2 Systems Engineering Do you want AutoCAD formatted models? The Government will accept models in its existing format. AutoCAD is required for the delivery of the TDP.

Draft RFP - 70 RFP pg. 66 Security and Info Assurance Deliver source code and documentation for all models? Yes, the Government requires source code and documentation for all models.

Draft RFP - 71 RFP pg. 68 3.3.1 Fire Control System Does this have to include a GPS/INS or is a WSSN-7 connection available? Per the Top Level Requirements Document the system shall have GPS/INS, and the OTH-WS will be interfaced with the ships navigation suite.

Draft RFP - 72 RFP pg. 68 3.3.1.2 Launching mechanism

2 or 4 cell, but what about 3? Per the TRLD, the Government's requirement is for two (2) or four (4) cell Launching Mechanism configurations.

Draft RFP - 73 RFP pg. 68 3.3.1.1.1/3.3.1.2.1/3.3.2.1.1

Improved Systems

Is there an anticipated timeline/qty for bringing improved systems online? The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to deliver test assets within 730 days of option exercise of the Improvement CLIN.

Draft RFP - 74 RFP pg. 68 3.3.1.1.1/3.3.1.2.1/3.3.2.1.1

Improved Systems

Will there be development funding allocated for improved systems? All RFP requirements are subject to the availability of funds.

Draft RFP - 75 RFP pg. 68 3.2.15.4 Production

Readiness Review

Will attachment J-7 be provided? All Section J attachments will be provided with the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 76 RFP N/A Will an updated draft RFP be provided with Sections L & M? The Government will not be issuing a draft RFP with Sections L and M. The formal RFP will include

Sections L and M

Draft RFP - 77 Industry Day Briefing N/A Does a classified addendum count against the page count limit? Section L of the formal RFP will establish proposal requirements, to include page count limitations and exceptions.

Draft RFP - 78 Industry Day Briefing N/A Shouldn’t the Threshold be the minimally acceptable range (why does the RFP accept a range that is 60 nm less than Threshold)? In order to enhance competition, and to install OTH-WS system capabilities on LCS/FF as soon as possible, the Government has structured the RFP to consider existing systems that meet either the missile range requirement or the SWaP-C TLRD requirements. In order to be eligible for award, an existing system must meet at least one of the two requirements.

Draft RFP - 79 Industry Day Briefing N/A What is the expected contract type for the improved missile effort? Firm-Fixed Price.

Draft RFP - 80 Industry Day Briefing N/A Will LCS/FF environmental specs be provided? The Government will provide high level operational environments to include sea state, temperature, rain, ice loading, humidity etc., in the formal OTH-WS TLRD.

Draft RFP - 81 Industry Day Briefing N/A What cost elements are provided in the price and will adjustments be made based on the amount that the threshold range is exceeded?

Section L of the formal RFP will contain details related to the price proposal instructions, and

Section M will contain details on evaluation of the price proposal.

Draft RFP - 82 Industry Day Briefing N/A Will more specific information be provided for the threat systems? No.

Draft RFP - 83 Industry Day Briefing N/A How does the Frigate fit within the Navy’s Distributed Lethality concept? The FF ship class is an integral asset within the distributed lethality initiative.

Draft RFP - 84 Industry Day Briefing N/A It was difficult to take notes on the Industry Day slides, when will we be provided a copy? The Contracting Officer posted the Industry Day slides to FBO 28 December 2016.

Draft RFP - 85 Industry Day Briefing N/A Sections L & M are the most important sections of the Draft RFP, when will we be able to review them? Industry will be able to view Sections L and M when the formal RFP is announced through the

Government-wide point of entry (GPE) at: https://www.fbo.gov.

Draft RFP - 86 Industry Day Briefing N/A Are there subfactors to Price (development, production, cost per kill, etc.). No.

Draft RFP - 87 Draft RFP Section B Requiring FFP CLINs, 9 years into the future for an OTH-WS that has not been built would require contractors to accept a level of contracting risk that is not commensurate with the level of design maturity at this point in time

Comment noted. Production hardware CLINs will remain FFP.

Draft RFP - 88 Draft RFP Section C. 3.2.5 Safety Program There is significant risk associated with meeting the paragraph 3.2.5 Safety Program requirements and obtaining Weapons System

Explosive Safety Review Board (WSESRB) approval to test and deploy the OTH-WS.

Comment noted.

Draft RFP - 89 Draft RFP Sections B, I If FFP CLINS remain in the RFP, we recommend an Economic Price Adjustment Clause inserted into the contract which would allow adjustments for inflation or deflation based upon cost indices associated with the products being provided. Providing FFP pricing for supplies and services to be provided more than 3 contract years in the future entails a significant level of uncertainty which will result in conservative/higher pricing than the Government might otherwise receive

Comment noted. The RFP will not include an EPA clause.

Draft RFP - 90 Industry Day Briefing The section L and M briefing indicates that an award will be made on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis versus a Best

Value approach. We recommend letting the warfighter drive requirements and selecting the product that provides the best value associated with these requirements.

Comment noted. To further clarify, as briefed at industry day, the Government will utilize the Best

Value Tradeoff source selection process.

Draft RFP - 91 Draft RFP We see a discrepancy between the Firm Fixed Price CLINs and the draft statement of work. Tasking included in the SOW is indicative of a developmental effort even though some of the typical developmental SETR reviews (SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR) are not included within the scope of the contract. The fact that a PRR is included in paragraph 3.2.15.4 is normally associated with a milestone decision to transition from Engineering and Manufacturing Development to Limited Rate Initial Production or Full Rate Production after which program risk would be at a level appropriate for FFP contracting for many of the OTH-WS CLINS.

Comment noted.

Draft RFP - 92 DRFP Page 15, CLIN 0108 In order to prepare relevant positions for a submittal to the RFP, please describe the available schedule ranges for CLIN 0108 OTH-WS

Improvement. Specifically, what is the schedule requirement for initial delivery of “Improved Encanistered Missiles”?

The formal RFP will contain additional information related to the OTH-WS Improvement CLIN requirements.

Draft RFP - 93 TLRD Para 3.3.1 The opening paragraph of the Government’s Over-the-Horizon Weapon System Draft Request for Proposal has language that clearly states the Government’s intent to allow for competition in this solicitation. The related portions on page 1 of 158 are, “Interested vendors should note that, in order to promote full and open competition to the maximum extent practicable, the Navy intends to structure the RFP to allow for flexibility in meeting the missile range and Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP-C) requirements contained in the OTH-WS Top Level Requirements Document (TLRD). The intent is to allow the Government to potentially consider an award to an

Offeror whose existing OTH-WS does not meet either the missile range or the SWaP-C TLRD requirement.” Yet, in an unclassified section of the TLRD, section “3.3 (U) Maturity Requirements”, there are two paragraphs that appear to be in conflict with the opening paragraph referenced above, section “3.3.1 (U) Non-Developmental Item (NDI). The OTH-WS shall be a system that has been developed and tested in an operationally relevant environment.”, and section 3.3.2 “(U) Producibility. The OTH-WS shall be a system that is ready to begin production for operational use.” These two TLRD sections referenced are not conducive to a competitive developmental offer that meets either range and/or SWaP-C because by definition, a proposal with development, that meets either

SWaP-C or range will need development to meet the non-compliant range or SWAP-C along with TLRD requirements and will not have been “developed and tested in an operationally relevant environment” or “be a system that is ready to begin production for operational use” upon proposal submission. We requests clarity as to the Government’s intent. Is it the intent of the Government to limit competition by requiring proposed systems meet TRLD requirements and have completed operational testing and be ready for production before the Offeror's submission? Or is the Government’s intent to allow for competition by requiring that proposed systems meet either SWaP-C and/or range requirements set forth in the TLRD with the initial offer, and then meet all requirements and be operational tested and production ready by a schedule set forth in section 3.5 OTH-WS Improvement?

The Government's intent is to promote full and open competition to the maximum extent possible.

The Government's desire is to procure an existing NDI OTH-WS that meets all TLRD requirements.

In order to maximize competition, the RFP will allow for flexibility in meeting the Capital Warship

Range and SWaP-C requirements contained in the OTH-WS TLRD. The intent is to allow the

Government to potentially consider an award to an Offeror whose existing NDI OTH-WS does not meet either the Capital Warship Range or the SWaP-C TLRD requirement (in order to be eligible for award, a proposed existing NDI OTH-WS must meet at least one (1) of these two (2) TRLD requirements [Capital Warship Range, and SWaP-C], and meet all other TLRD and Solicitation requirements). If an Offeror's proposed existing NDI OTH-WS does not meet either Capital

Warship Range requirement or the Swap-C requirement, the Offeror will be required to propose an

'Improved' OTH-WS that meets all TLRD requirements. Section L of the RFP will establish the specific supporting data required for each TLRD requirement to demonstrate/establish that the proposed existing NDI OTH-WS meets the TLRD requirement. Furthermore, any 'Improved' OTH-

WS would be required to meet all TLRD at the point when the contractor provides the Navy with hardware test assets to support Navy 'Live Fire' demonstration testing.

Draft RFP - 94 TLRD Para 3.3.1 With respect to the TLRD requirement Paragraph 3.3.1 “Non-Development Item (NDI)”, would a system composed of a fielded system with an integrated off-the-shelf sub-system be deemed awardable?

Yes, if it meets all of the solicitation requirements.

Draft RFP - 95 DRFP Page 112 To reduce program cost, will a waiver of Clause 52.211-5 Material Requirements be acceptable, if the resultant Encanistered Missiles are compliant with TLRD requirements?

No waiver to the requirements listed under FAR 52.211-5 will be accepted.

Draft RFP - 96 DRFP During the recent Surface Navy Association, several speakers described the Frigate OTH-WS as having the ability to receive inflight updates yet the DRFP has no mention of a datalink. Also, when asked about datalink (net-enabled) capability, the Government stated that it was indeed a requirement for the Frigate OTH-WS and if it wasn't in the requirements, it needed to be added. Furthermore, he directed our representatives to submit a question of clarification, referencing his conversation, to NAVSEA PEO IWS. Therefore, we request clarification as to a datalink capability requirement to receive inflight updates and how will positive consideration be given?

Data link is not a requirement.

Draft RFP - 97 DRFP Please provide the U.S. Government’s budget by CLIN by Fiscal Year (FY). The Government will not provide the budget by CLIN by Fiscal Year.

Draft RFP - 98 We strongly believe the single weapon procurement approach for both the LCS and FF will yield a sub-optimized solution for both mission areas and will highly unlikely meet future threat challenges; Recommendation is to allow for the selection of two different weapons for the LCS and FF or a combination of systems for each.

Comment noted. The RFP will be for a single award covering both LCS and FF.

Draft RFP - 99 The range requirement, as currently written, does not appear to provide margin in the current threat environment. In our opinion the USN range criteria should be specified as a "mission plannable" range that takes into account margin for maneuvering targets, weather and routing requirements (hold outs / white shipping avoidance). Employment range for other USN weapons are typically

80% of kinematic range maximum capability. Future additional range margin may be desirable in the construct of Distributed

Lethality, especially for the Frigate; Recommendation is to annotate the range requirement to be a mission plannable range to account for margin required for mission planning and routing.

Comment noted. The TLRD Capital Warship Rage requirement will remain unchanged.

Draft RFP - 100 There is no requirement called out for Probability of correct classification. Without a high level of confidence in the weapon's ability to correctly classify the threat, the warfighter historically will not use the system; Recommendation is to Add Combat ID / Probability of correct classification requirement in seeker attributes.

Comment noted.

Draft RFP - 101 There is no factor associated with future growth capability which will be critical if this weapon is to be relevant for 20 years after fielding. Given the rate of threat weapons development and fielding, it appears that space, weight and power for increased range, targeting and survivability should be taken into consideration. Recommendation is to add a new factor to enable credit for room for future growth in range, lethality and targeting.

Comment noted.

Draft RFP - 102 There is no mention of Weapon Datalink or Network Enabled Weapons capability which could be beneficial in establishing a robust kill chain for FF OTH; Recommendation is to add a Line of Sight Weapon Datalink requirement to system attributes.

Data link is not a requirement.

Draft RFP - 103 The evaluation criteria are written such that the low price and technically acceptable solution will likely be selected. It is not clear on how the USN will take into account the increased lethality of certain systems over another. We would recommend that the US Navy use a "cost per kill" metric when evaluating the price of the program, vice strictly looking at unit cost; Recommendation is to change evaluation criteria language to say "Non-Price factors, when combined, are more important than price" instead of "approximately equal" or take into account a cost per kill metric that enables the USN to more accurately value survivable, lethal weapons.

Comment noted. To further clarify, the Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff source selection process.

Draft RFP - 104 The TLRD does not define whether the targets are radiating or not. If they are assumed to be radiating, please specify the type of emitter or the exact class of ship.

The OTH-WS must be able to engage regardless of whether the target is radiating or not.

Draft RFP - 105 If the targets are not radiating, will In-flight Target Updates (IFTU) via Link 16 be available and from what particular platforms? What are the messages, error and periodicity associated with the updates?

In-flight Target Updates (IFTU) will not be provided.

Draft RFP - 106 Is the Navy willing to procure the Launcher Mechanism, the Fire Control System, Rocket Motor and Encanistered process separately and to provide these as GFE items?

No.

Draft RFP - 107 TLRD/Section M n/a The TLRD does not contain any lethality requirements. How will lethality be assessed/valued? All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 108 TRLD/Section M n/a Will salvo size to achieve a hit on the desired target be an evaluated factor? If so, how? No.

Draft RFP - 109 Section M n/a Will the government utilize Cost per Kill as part of the best value trade-off? Rationale: It should be a combination of survivability against the threat defenses, reliability of the system, lethality of a single hit at the minimum. Cost is more than the price of a single

AUR. If one system requires a 10 missile salvo to achieve a lethal hit, for example, and is half the cost of another system that only requires a 3 missile salvo to achieve a lethal hit, then the more expensive per AUR system is actually cheaper.

No.

Draft RFP - 110 TRLD/Section M n/a The TLRD does not contain any performance requirements in denied environments. How will denied environment performance be assessed/evaluated?

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the formal RFP.

Draft RFP - 111 Section M n/a Does the government plan to use Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) in best value tradeoff? No.

Draft RFP - 112 General n/a Would there be a disqualifying conflict of interest if Industry partnered with a Navy Warfare Center for a system? There could be a benefit to have a warfare center act as LSI with Industry providing the systems and engineering support.

A Navy Warfare Center cannot provide LSI services to a potential Offeror for the purposes of proposing under the OTH-WS RFP.

Draft RFP - 113 DRFP 0 Will the Government accept and evaluate alternate proposals by Offerors?- Specifically, if Offerors desire to submit a second proposal (as a team or separately) offering a multiple missile solution, will the Government accept and evaluate this second alternative offer?

No.

Draft RFP - 114 DRFP 0

Similarly, will the Government consider a provision in the RFP that allows vendors to propose additional options (including work scope description in the SOW and IMS and associated cost estimates) that would meet the Navy’s technical requirements?

No.