Attachment_J-S1_-_Question_Submittal_Form_-_Set_1.pdf

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

Question Set/Number

Question Source:

(RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question Government Response

Set 1 - 1 RFP Pg 127, Section I, Clause 52.211-5 Per FAR 52.211-5 (e) “Used, reconditioned, or remanufactured supplies, or unused former Government surplus property, may be used in contract performance if the Contractor has proposed the use of such supplies, and the Contracting Officer has authorized their use.” The Offeror formally requests the government to allow the use of reconditioned, or remanufactured supplies in response to this N00024- 17-R-5430 solicitation.

In order for the Contracting Officer to make a determination in accordance with FAR 52.211-5 (e) an Offeror's proposal must address the requirements listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the clause.

The RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement.

Set 1 - 2 RFP Page 165, Section L 1.0 - General, paragraph 1.4

Will the Navy Accept Secret/NoFORN Data? In order to respond to the RFP, we will need to submit our data at a higher classification level.

The Government will accept SECRET/NOFORN data. The Government will not accept proposal documents that are classified above the SECRET level. Offerors are responsible for marking their proposals with the appropriate dissemination control markings, if applicable.

Set 1 - 3 RFP Pg 208, Section M, Paragraph 3.2.4 Subfactor 4 - OTH-WS Improvement

In accordance with Note 1 of Paragraph 3.2.4 of the solicitation, “An Offeror who proposes an OTH-WS that meets both the full TLRD EM Capital Warship Range requirement, and the full TLRD SWaP-C requirements will be rated as ‘N/A’ for this subfactor. However, for the purpose of a best value trade-off comparison, an Offeror that meets both the full TLRD EM Capital Warship Range requirement and the full TLRD SWaP-C requirement will be evaluated more favorably than any Offeror who is required to propose an OTH-WS Improvement.” If sub-factor 4 is marked N/A, to what factor and/or sub-factor will a “more favorably” grade be applied and how does that grade translate to the adjectival ratings from section M?

In the event an Offeror is marked N/A for Factor 2 subfactor 4, the Government will evaluate that Offeror more favorably when assigning an adjectival rating for Factor 2.

Set 1 - 4 RFP Pg 111-113, Section F, Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY NOTE 1 says that deliveries will be made through thirty three months, but the Delivery Dates in the table all say 36 Months. Please confirm that Delivery Note 1 will be updated to change thirty three to thirty six.

The delivery timeline listed in NOTE 1 is correct. The delivery of the Encanistered Missiles/ Improved Encanistered Missiles shall be evenly distributed per quarter beginning twenty four months after contract award or option exercise through thirty three months, regardless of the stepladder quantity that is procured. The delivery dates listed in the table in Section F will be updated to reflect 24-33 Months After date of Contract.

Set 1 - 5 RFP Pg. 207, Section M, Paragraph 3.2.1 Subfactor 1 - EM Capital Warship Range

How will longer demonstrated range assessed as "more favorable" be scored? Are there range objective requirements for Purple and Blue ratings?

The longer the demonstrated missile range the more favorable the missile range evaluation will be when assigning an adjectival rating for Factor 2 subfactor 1.

Set 1 - 6 Attachment J-S4 Tab Section B Non-Stepladder CLINs

Row 49 of the spreadsheet states "Prepare one of these forms for each CLIN as specified on Form L-N Instructions." This form appears to contain a listing of all non-stepladder CLINs, which would lead the offeror to believe that this form just needs to be filled out once with the price for each CLIN. Please confirm. Also, will the USG please provide the "Form L-N Instructions"?

Attachment J-S4 Section B Non-Stepladder CLINs tab row 49 will be updated to remove the existing statement and replace it with the following instructions: The cells on this form shall match the Section B pricing and do not need to be linked to any other form.

Set 1 - 7 Attachment J-S4 Tab Section B Non-Stepladder CLINs

Row 52 of the spreadsheet states "Cost should be through FCCOM." Given that these are FFP CLINs and Column B is entitled "Section B Price", it would seem that only price needs to be listed. Please confirm.

Attachment J-S4 Section B Non-Stepladder CLINs tab row 52 will be updated to remove the existing statement and replace it with the following instructions: Round cost values to whole dollars. This tab shall only contain the Offerors Section B Price.

Set 1 - 8 RFP Pg 192, Section L, Section 2 Price Proposal CLIN Narratives/Instructions

The listing of CLINs in paragraph 2.2 includes 0111, which is not a training, Mission Support Equipment or OTH-WS Improvement Plan CLIN. The listing is missing CLIN 0011 (Mission Support Equipment).

Please confirm that the USG intends to change CLIN 0111 to CLIN 0011 in paragraph 2.2.

Section L will be updated to replace CLIN 0111 with CLIN 0011.

Set 1 - 9 RFP Pg 211, Section M, Total Evaluated Price Paragraph 5

The offeror believes that the USG meant to list the Travel & ODC CLINs (0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, 0409, 0509 and 0609) CLINs, in line with what is listed on page 193 in paragraph 2.4. Please confirm.

CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, 0409, 0509 and 0609 are cost-only CLINs providing for payment of travel and other direct costs supporting Design Agent Services, Installation and Integration Services and Test Support Services. Costs are not proposed for these CLINs and instead the Government-provided Not-To-Exceed (NTE) values will be used in the contract award. For this reason the costs for CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, 0409, 0509 and 0609 are not included in the Total Evaluated Price. Section M will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 10 RFP Pg 116, Section G, DFARS 252.232- 7006 Wide Area Workflow Payment Instructions

CLINs 0099 (Provisioned Items Orders) and 0114 (Enhanced Data Rights - Improved OTH-WS) are not listed. What process does the USG intend to utilize for receipt of invoices?

Section G will be updated to include CLINs 0099 and 0114 in DFARS 252.232-7006.

Set 1 - 11 RFP Pg 134, Section I, FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract

The total duration of the contract is identified as 5 years. Assuming ATP 11/1/2017, the contract would end at 10/31/2022. The vast majority of the option CLINs have PoPs that are beyond 10/31/2022.

Please clarify.

Section I will be updated to remove the reference to a five year period of performance in FAR 52.217-9(c).

Set 1 - 12 RFP * Pg 183, Section L, Paragraph 2.2.4 Subfactor 4: OTH-WS Improvement

* Pg 192, Section L, Paragraph 2.

Book 2: Price Proposal

In Section L, Pg 183 states that CLIN 0110 will be exercised on 30-Sep-20. Section B lists CLIN 0110 as an FY19 CLIN. The offeror believes that the date on Pg 183 should be changed to 1-Oct-18. We believe that the exercise date of CLIN 0110 on Pg 192 should be listed separately and should match the date on Pg 183.

CLIN 0110 is not a Fiscal Year 19 requirement therefore Section B will be updated to remove the FY19 reference. For the purposes of developing an IMS and the price proposal, Offerors shall assume an option exercise date for CLIN 0110 of 30 Sept 2020. Section L will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 13 RFP Pg 148-153, Section I, DFARS 252.211-7003 Item Unique Identification and Valuation

If an offeror already has an existing IUID marking plan that has been negotiated with the USG, will that marking plan be acceptable under this contract?

The Government cannot comment on the acceptability of an Offeror's existing IUID marking plan.

An IUID Making Plan will be delivered during contract performance under CDRL AA0027.

Set 1 - 14 RFP * Pg 79, Section C, 4.1 Program Management

* Pg 85, Section C, 4.4.1.3 Cost Report

The RFP states "4.1 Program Management (Applicable to all CLINs except 0006-0009, 0106-0110, 0206- 0209, 0306- 0309, 0406-0409, 0506-0509, 0606- 0609 and 0099)" which leads the offeror to interpret the USN direction is to only perform the effort described in SOW paragraph 4.0 and its sub paragraphs on Firm Fixed Price CLINs (including CLIN 0110 as included on Pg 85) - is this the USN's intent? If so the offeror requests a copy of the waiver for the use of EVM on Firm Fixed Price contracts for this RFP.

The Government does not require EVM on Firm Fixed Price CLINs. Section C will be updated to remove the Contract Funds Status Report (CDRL AB0002).

Set 1 - 15 RFP * Pg 79, Section C, 4.1 Program Management

* Pg 127-153, Section I

Please clarify the contractually required implementation of EVM (via the EVM DFARS clause) ands the associated reporting of EVM data, reference SOW paragraph 4.1. Additionally What is the USN's plan for EVM reporting in accordance with the IPMR guide?

The Government does not require EVM. Section L will be updated to remove DFARS 252.234-7001.

Set 1 - 16 RFP Pg 2-74, Section B, CLIN Structure There are no EM-T (CLIN 0004, 0104, etc.) or IOM (CLIN 0005, 0105, etc.) for the CLIN 0110 EM-I Improved missile. If the Offerer plans to propose an improvement plan per CLIN 0110, will the USG want Improved EM-Ts or IOMs that represent the improved missile?

The Government does not require Improved EM-Ts or IOMs. The Improved hardware (EM-I, LM-I, and/or FCS-I) that the Offeror delivers under CLIN 0110 will be used as test assets.

Set 1 - 17 RFP Pg 75, Section C, Paragraph 1.7 Option Items 0007, 0107, 0207, 0307, 0407, 0507 and 0607

Is Installation and Integration Services on LCS a requirement of the SOW/RFP? Installation and Integration services are required for the LCS. Section C will be updated to clarify this requirement.

Set 1 - 18 RFP Pg 2-74, Section B, CLIN Structure Without gaps, the CPFF Labor Option CLINs cover a 7 year PoP. However, the hardware CLINs cover a 9 year PoP. Was it the USG's intent to not purchase services for the last 2 years of production?

The Government will require Design Agent Services, Installation and Integration Services and Test Support Services through the end of the contract. The RFP will be updated to extend the period of performance for CLINs 0606-0608 to span the delivery of the production CLINs.

Set 1 - 19 Attachment J-3 Pg 1, Box 2c The solicitation number on the DD254 does not match the OTH-WS solicitation number on the RFP.

Please provide the correct DD254.

The correct DD254 was provided with the RFP. The number provided within field 2.c. falls into the category of "OTHER NUMBER." The DD254 will be updated prior to contract award to reflect the contract number and successful Offeror's information.

Set 1 - 20 Exhibit A CDRL AB0022 Integrated Master Schedule

CDRL AB0022 Block 4 references DID DI-MGMT-81650 Integrated Master Schedule. This DID has been superseded by DI-MGMT-81861A. Should this DID reference be updated and tailored to include Format (6) Integrated Master Schedule only, excluding references to all other formats?

CDRL AB0022 will be updated to reflect the correct DID reference.

Set 1 - 21 RFP Pg 54, Section B, CLIN 0510 Training

FOB has been changed to "Origin (Shipping Point)". Please clarify that this should be "Destination" in line with the SLINs.

Section B will be updated to reflect FOB Destination for CLIN 0510.

Set 1 - 22 RFP * Pg 3, Section B, CLIN 0003

* Pg 12, Section B, CLIN 0103

Launching Mechanism CLINs 0003 and 0103 have been listed as FOB "Destination" in Section B. CLINs 0203, 0303, 0403, 0503, 0504 are also Launching Mechanism CLINs but are listed as FOB "Origin (Shipping Point) in Section B. Request that CLINs 0003 and 0103 be changed to FOB "Origin (Shipping Point)".

Section B will be updated to reflect FOB Destination for CLINs 0003 and 0103.

Set 1 - 23 RFP * Pg 2-67, Section B, All CLINs

* Pg 111-112, Section F, Deliveries or Performance

The "Ship To Address" codes listed in Section F do not match the "FOB" designators assigned in Section B for the majority of the CLINs. For example CLIN 0006 is listed as "FOB Destination" in Section B, but is listed as "FOB Origin" in Section F. Please confirm what is correct.

The RFP will be updated to ensure the information contained in Section B and Section F match.

Set 1 - 24 RFP * Pg 10, Section B, CLIN 0098

* Pg 114, Section F, Clause HQ F-1-

CLIN 0098 (Data) is listed in the note that states the data should be delivered prepaid to the destination. It is listed as FOB Origin (Shipping Point) in Section B. Please confirm which is correct.

Section B will be updated to reflect FOB Destination for CLIN 0098.

Set 1 - 25 RFP Pg 127-153, Section I The following clauses are referenced in the contract but not included in Section I. Will the USG be updating Section I to include the following clauses:

* FAR 52.232-20, Limitation of Cost (Referenced on Pg 69, Section B, HQ B-2-0007 and on Pg 124, Section H, 5252.232-9104)

* FAR 52.207-4, Economic Purchase Quantity - Supplies (Referenced on Pg 70, Section B, HQ B-2-0017)?

Section I will be updated to include FAR 52.232-20. The Government will not include FAR 52.207-4 in the RFP.

Set 1 - 26 RFP Pg 121, Section H, Level of Effort Request an update to Section H to add clause number 5252.216-9122 to the title for "Level of Effort - Alternate I" as this clause is referenced throughout the contract with the clause number.

Section H will be updated to add the clause number to title of the Level of Effort clause.

Set 1 - 27 RFP Pg 127-153, Section I Request that the USG add FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, and Navy Clause 5252.245-9500, Government Property for the Performance of this Contract, to Section I. Offerors may have tooling and/or factory test equipment in use on current production lines that would be beneficial to the USG.

The RFP will be updated to include the appropriate clauses related to the use of Government Property.

Set 1 - 28 RFP Pg 127-153, Section I DFARS 252.234-7001, Notice of Earned Value Management System, is included in Section L (Pg 194).

Does the USG intend to add DFARS 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System, to Section I?

DFARS 252.234-7002 will not be included in the RFP. Further, Section L will be updated to remove

DFARS 252.234-7001.

Set 1 - 29 RFP * Pg 124, Section H, NAVSEA 5252.323-9104 Allotment of Funds

* Pg 127-153, Section I

NAVSEA 5252.2322-9104 (c) is subject to FAR 52.232-20, Limitation of Cost, but 52.232-20 is not included in Section I. Request addition of 52.323-20 to Section I.

Section I will be updated to include FAR 52.232-20.

Set 1 - 30 RFP Pg 194, Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Request incorporation of DFARS 252.234-7003, Notice of Cost and Software Data Reporting System into the "Clauses Incorporated By Reference" list as it is referenced on Pg 188, Paragraph 2.5 Element 5 - Other Information and on Pg 209, Paragraph 3.3.5 Element 5 - Other Information.

Section L will be updated to include DFARS 252.234-7003.

Set 1 - 31 RFP * Pg 194, Section L, Paragraph 3.4

* Pg 210, Section L, Paragraph 3.6 Factor 6: Total Evaluated Price

Please confirm that 252.242-7502 is a valid DFARS clause as it cannot be found in the DFARS. Believe the USG may have meant to reference DFARS 252.242-7006 Accounting System Administration or PGI 242-7502. Request the correct clause or Reference be listed on Pg 194 & Pg 210, as well as in Section I.

Section L will be updated to reflect the correct DFARS subpart reference number of DFARS 242.7502.

Set 1 - 32 RFP Pg 127-128, Section I, FAR 52.215- 21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data - Modifications

Request the addition of Alt I to FAR 52.215-21 to allow submission of cost or pricing data in the offeror's format.

The Government will not include FAR 52.215-21 Alt 1 in the RFP.

Set 1 - 33 OTH WS Top Level Requirements Document

0 Will the government provide offerors with a copy of the LCS and FF Capabilities Description Document (CDD)? If so, when?

No

Set 1 - 34 OTH WS Top Level Requirements Document

0 Will the government provide a Security Classification Guide specifically for the OTH-WS or will the government refer to only the provided ship SCG?

There is no SCG for the OTH-WS. Offerors shall adhere to the SCG that is referenced in Attachment

J-3 DD254.

Set 1 - 35 CDRL AA Page 3. CDRL A0003 Many of the CDRLs Block 16 state: "Blocks 10/12/13; submit report as specified by events listed under Attachment 5, … " Please identify and define Attachment 5.

The CDRLs should reference Attachment J-4 – Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan. All affected CDRLs will be updated to include the correct attachment number reference.

Set 1 - 36 RFP; CDRLs AA Page 190-191. CDRLs AA Section L calls for certain attachments to be submitted with the Proposal (L.6.1.b.7 "Section J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS"). The CDRLs call for the same attachments to be submitted sometime after Contract Award, specifically, CDRLS AA 0022, 0026, 0028, 0042. Is it the government's intent to evaluate these "Attachments/CDRLs" as part of the Proposal? Or should Offerors assume that the "Attachments/CDRLs" will be delivered in accordance with Block 12 of DD Form 1423-1 ?

Attachments J-13/14/15/16/18 that are required to be submitted under L.3.1.2 Section 3 (Required Technical Proposal Attachments) will be incorporated into the final contract in Section J and will not be required to be resubmitted under the Pricing Volume. The RFP will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement. The Equipment Technical Manuals will be delivered post contract award in accordance with CDRL AA0026.

Set 1 - 37 RFP RFP Other Navy Program Offices protect certain data that is requested within the RFP as higher than "Secret." Does the government consider this information "Secret" for this program? If this information needs to be protected at a higher classification level, how should Offerors submit the requested information as the proposal is limited to the "Secret" level?

The Government will not reclassify data that has been previously classified higher than SECRET by another program. Further, the Government will not accept proposal documents that are classified above the SECRET level.

Set 1 - 38 RFP Page 189. Section L.3.1.4 Past Performance, Factor 5 #2

RFP states, "The Offeror shall also provide information for all subcontractors whose total subcontract price (inclusive of all options) is greater than or equal to $13,500,000, or 10% of the Offeror's total proposed price…" What "information" is the government requesting related to major subcontractors?

The information referred to by the Government is that which depicts an Offeror's major subcontractors' depth of past performance and qualification under contracts which have helped to establish their management and technical capability for the scope of work and variety of skill categories and manning levels proposed to produce the OTH-WS. Section L will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 39 RFP Page 189. Section L.3.1.4 Past Performance, Factor 5 #2

The RFP states "Offerors to this solicitation shall provide Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment J-S6) to its customers for completion for up to three of the contracts cited above as recent and relevant past performance and two contracts cited above for its major subcontractor(s)." Does the government require two questionnaires total for the major subcontractors in the proposal? Or does the government expect two questionnaires for each major subcontractor?

The Government requires two past performance questionnaires for each of an Offeror's major subcontractors. Section L will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 40 RFP Page 176. 2.1.1 Go/No Go Factor 1 Supporting Evidence, TLRD Paragraph 3.2.4.1

Please clarify the mapping of service and shelf life predictions and performance relative to operator interface. Is it the expectation that these items are reported on the operator interface?

It is not the Government's expectation that the mapping of services and shelf life predictions and performance relative to operator interface is reported on the operator interface. The Government is requesting supporting evidence that an Offeror's OTH-WS contains an Operator Interface that operates in accordance with the OTH-WS TLRD Paragraph 3.2.4.1. The required supporting evidence is: 1. Service/Shelf Life Predictions 2. Prediction analysis description 3. Test Data and Reports (Actual and/or Simulated).

Set 1 - 41 RFP 0 Can the government please confirm that it intends to exercise some minimal quantity each year to ensure a continued production line?

The Government intends to exercise the production CLINs each year, however, each option exercise is subject to the availability of funds.

Set 1 - 42 RFP Page 77. Section C, 1.10, Top of page

The EM-TR requirement stipulates the same mass properties as tactical EM, but also indicates configuration to include inert energetics and warhead. Within an EM the energetics items and warhead are not accessible. Please clarify the requirements for the EM-TR. Does a mass simulator EM with an interface and functionality emulator meet the government’s need?

Subject to the Government's review of an Offeror's proposed EM-TR, a functional emulator could meet the Government's needs.

Set 1 - 43 RFP Page 77. Section C, 1.10, Top of page

There is no quantity requirement for the EM-TR listed in the RFP. Does the government want the offerors to propose a quantity?

The required quantity for the EM-TRs is contained in Attachment J-15. Attachment J-15 will be updated to reflect the correct acronym for the Encanistered Missile - Training Rounds (EM-TR).

Set 1 - 44 RFP Page 191. Section L, M&S Table 3:

Penetration Scenario

Does the government have a threshold or objective Probability of Hit (Ph) for the penetration scenario 1 Weapon vs 1 Capital Warship?

The Government does not have a threshold or objective Probability of Hit.

Set 1 - 45 RFP Page 191. Section L, M&S Table 3:

Penetration Scenario

Will the government rate an offeror more favorably for a higher Probability of Hit (Ph) resulting from the provided penetration scenario?

The Government will evaluate Subfactor 2: EM Penetration in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in Section M of the RFP.

Set 1 - 46 RFP Page 173 - 174. Section L, 2.1.1 There are two "N/As" for 3.1.6 in the table associated with Lower Level Document and Installation Control Drawing/Interface Control Document that do not have "N/As" in attachment J-S7. Should Offerors comply with the RFP or the attachment for these items?

Attachment J-7 will be updated to include N/A for the Lower Level Document and Installation Control Drawing/Interface Control Document in the requirement matrix for TLRD paragraph 3.1.6.

Set 1 - 47 RFP Page 178. Section L, 2.2.1 There is one "N/A" for 3.1.1.2 in the algorithm description document column but there are none in Attachment J-S7. Sub factor 1, Supporting Evidence, does request a Flight Profile ADD. Should Offerors comply with the RFP or the attachment for this item?

The RFP will be updated to remove N/A for the Algorithm Description Document requirement in the compliance matrix for TLRD paragraph 3.1.1.2

Set 1 - 48 RFP Page 173 - 174. Section L, 2.1.1 Please clarify which Performance Requirements require ICDs. For example, what would be included in an ICD for FAC Range or Seeker Attribute 1 & 2?

Section L will be updated to revise which performance requirements require the submission of an Installation Control Drawing/ Interface Control Document as supporting documents.

Set 1 - 49 RFP Page 178. Section L, 2.2.1 Does the ICD requirement apply to Capital Warship Range? If so, what should be included in the ICD? The Installation Control Drawing/ Interface Control Document requirements do not apply to the Capital Warship Range performance requirement. Section L will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 50 RFP Page 180. Section L, 2.2.2 Does the ICD requirement apply to Missile Penetration? If so, what should be included in the ICD? The Installation Control Drawing/ Interface Control Document requirements do not apply to the Missile Penetration performance requirement. Section L will be updated to reflect the clarification of this requirement.

Set 1 - 51 RFP Page 178. Section L, 2.2.1, Subfactor 1 Supporting Evidence,

3.1.1.2 Capital Warship Range

What are the definitions of “Maximum Operational Range of Weapon,” “Maximum Effective Range of the Weapon,” and “Operational Range Envelope for Weapon?” What is the difference, if any, between these three attributes?

Section L will be updated to include the definitions for “Maximum Operational Range of Weapon,” “Maximum Effective Range of the Weapon,” and “Operational Range Envelope for Weapon.”

Set 1 - 52 RFP Page 180. Section L, 2.2.2, Subfactor 2 Supporting Evidence,

3.1.5 Missile Penetration

What are the definitions of “Maneuverability Max Horizontal Width” and “Maneuverability Max Vertical Width?”

Section L will be updated to include the definitions for "Maneuverability Max Horizontal Width" and "Maneuverability Max Vertical Width."

Set 1 - 53 RFP 0 We request a meeting with Senior level Navy Officials to discuss items relating to the Frigate Over-the- Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) solicitation.

The Government is not responsible for coordinating a meeting between Senior level Navy Officials and an Offeror.

Set 1 - 54 RFP 0 Section L 2.7.1 language is unusual and highly restrictive provision makes it cumbersome and, in some instances, nearly impossible to pull together the data/information necessary to generate a proposal (i.e.: security classification, government furnished property, including test ranges and test equipment, etc.).

The Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for any questions related to the OTH-WS solicitation. Section L will be updated to remove paragraph 2.7.1 to eliminate any future confusion.

Set 1 - 55 RFP 0 We respectfully request that the Government reconsider the allowance of classified document submission higher than the SECRET level and to allow offerors to coordinate this submission with the appropriate USG personnel.

The Government will not accept proposal documents that are classified above the SECRET level.

Set 1 - 56 RFP 0 Rental/Use of Government Property - we needs to be able to discuss the possible rental/use of existing U.S. Government Property such as inventoried assets, facilities, tooling , and technology associated with our proposal. Since the current solicitation does not contain the FAR Clause for GFP use in any of these areas, we cannot have those conversations with the point of contacts listed in L 1.0 section 1.1. Our inability to communicate outside that point of contact to discuss options that may benefit the Government is also overly restrictive.

The RFP will be updated to include the appropriate clauses related to the use of Government Property.

Set 1 - 57 RFP 0 We would like to address the concerns of restricting our submission to one proposal. The Government will not accept alternate proposals.

FBO Post