N00024-18-R-2227_Responses_to_Offerors_Questions_2_August_2018.docx

2 August 2018 Responses to Offeror’s Questions:

1) Question: Section B Supply/Services, CLIN 0001AB, EPF Remaining DD&C, (Option) What is the circumstance for this option exercise and what is it intending to cover?

Answer: The government shall make a best value determination in accordance with Section M to award either CLIN 0001 or SLIN 0001AA. The scope of SLIN 0001AB is all of EPF 13 DD&C not including LLM (SLIN 0001AA).

2) Question: Section B Supplies / Services, CLIN 0037 (Option) Additional Government Requirement (AGR) Labor. What is the circumstance for this option exercise and what is it intending to cover?

Section B Supplies / Services, CLIN 0038 (Option) Additional Government Requirement (AGR) Material. What is the circumstance for this option exercise and what is it intending to cover?

Answer: These CLINs are NTEs. Instructions are in the Section B notes. Orders will be placed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section H clause “5252.216-9110 ORDERS (FIXED-PRICE)”

3) Question: Section B Supplies / Services, CLIN 0040, Special Studies. This has previously been quoted on an hourly rate basis. Will the government accept an hourly rate for this item?

Answer: These CLINs are NTEs. Instructions are in the Section B notes. Do not propose hourly rates for this item.

4) Question: Section B Note H: Applicable to CLIN 0001, SLIN 0001AA and SLIN 0001AB Regarding Fee, is the intent of this note to indicate that in all cases all change work going forward (other than the identified 14% fee under a “prospectively priced” proposal under the awarded contract) will be limited to the fee percentages identified for (a proposal with “all actuals” 4%) and for (a “less than prospectively priced proposal” with a mix of actuals and estimates 9%)? If so please provide the basis for that position, and advise if there is an opportunity for higher fee based on individual change action circumstances?

Answer: The Offeror's interpretation is correct. Section B Note H limitations on target profit for changes are derived from the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of risk.

5) Question: Solicitation section C 1.2.13 Cyber Security states: "To ensure mission success, the Contractor shall perform cybersecurity risk management, in accordance with DODINST 8500.01 of 14 March 2014, to protect and mitigate risks to Information Technology associated with Contractor‐furnished control and network systems." SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4 state that HM&E systems shall be similar or equal, where feasible, to mitigate training and life cycle support costs. Addition of the section C 1.2.13 Cyber Security will result in changes to the existing design, added cost and design impacts. Does the government intend to proceed with the inclusion as identified in section C 1.2.13 Cyber Security or accept a continuation of the definition as accepted for the EPF1‐12 design?

Answer: The Government is including this requirement as identified and believes this is not a change to the EPF 1-12 design. If this drives a change to the EPF 1-12 design, the shipbuilder should separately identify the impact and cost of this change so the Government can understand the impact.

6) Question: Section 1.2.13 calls for the contractor to perform cybersecurity risk management, in accordance with DODINST 8500.01. Assuming that the vessel machinery control system would be a PIT System, the offeror’s understanding of DODINST 8500.01 is that a PIT System must have a Risk Management Framework (RMF) as defined in DODINST 8510.01. The RMF calls for a system to categorized and for security controls to be selected before those security controls are incorporated into an RFP. When will the Gov't provide the Security Plan as discussed in DODINST 8510.01 Enclosure 6 Paragraph 1.d for the vessel machinery control system so the offerors can understand the security controls, testing, and documentation required?

Answer: The Government is including this requirement as identified and believes this is not a change to the EPF 1-12 design. If this drives a change to the EPF 1-12 design, the shipbuilder should separately identify the impact and cost of this change so the Government can understand the impact.

7) Question: Based upon solicitation Section C1, "Contractors that have previously classed an EPF or similar vessel to an earlier ABS HSNC rule set may obtain ABS HSNC approval to class EPF 13 to that same rule set in lieu of classing EPF 13 to HSNC 2018." The Offeror assumes that EPF 13 shall be classed to ABS HSNC 2007 due to agreements currently in place for Hulls 1 through 12 with ABS. Therefore the offeror assumes all references to ABS HSNC 2018 within the J‐1 Performance Specification are considered interchangable with ABS HSNC 2007. Can the Gov't confirm this is the correct interpretation of the subject section C1?

Answer: Contractors that have previously classed an EPF or similar vessel to an earlier ABS HSNC rule set may obtain ABS HSNC approval to class EPF 13 to that same rule set in lieu of classing EPF 13 to HSNC 2018. The Navy will then endorse the application of the earlier ABS HSNC rule set for EPF 13 in lieu of classing to HSNC 2018.

8) Question: DFARS 252.225‐7005 is titled in RFP as "Validation of Asserted Restrictions‐‐Computer Software", but this is the title for 252.227‐7019, which is also included in Section I. 252.225‐7005 has it titled "Identification of Expenditures in the United States" with last issuance in June 2005. Did the Government intend to insert DFARS 252.225‐7005 Identification of Expenditures in the United States (JUN 2005)?

Answer: DFAR 252.225-7005 was corrected from Validation of Asserted Restrictions to Identification of Expenditures in the United States June 2005.

9) Question: Section C 1.2.10 states: "The Contractor shall provide the Government with access to all detail design drawings (working drawings, specifications, bill of materials, and any other technical data that is part of the detail design)." and section C 2.1 states: "The Contractor shall provide all engineering, analyses, design, technical support, drawings, and documentation required for a complete and accurate ship design technical data package (see Attachment J‐3) that meets the design requirements of Attachment J‐1." Is the Government's intention for the Contractor to provide any deliverables, "detail design drawings (working drawings, specifications, bill of materials, and any other technical data that is part of the detail design)..." in addition to what was provided on EPF1‐12?

10) Answer: The Government does not intend for the Contractor to provide any design drawings (working drawings, specifications, bill of materials, and any other technical data that is part of the detail design) in excess of what was provided on EPF 1‐12.

11) Question: How does the Government intend to provide detailed LCC data from operational EPFs using both CAPE and ESWBS elements and hierarchy to support the development of B009 and B010 DRLs?

Answer: The Government did not intend to provide detailed LCC data in order to complete DI-B009 or DI-B010.

12) Question: The solicitation states, "The Offeror shall show the maturity of the vessel design by providing the following detail design products while still meeting the requirements in Attachment J‐1…" It is our belief that offerors cannot provide the completed Requirements Verification Matrix (RVM) and associated support documents compliant to the solicitation within the response timeframe allocated. Will the Gov't waive this requirement based on prior Navy RVM contract performance?

Answer: Section L will be updated with the following language: The RVM is not required if all other detail design products fully demonstrate the maturity of the vessel design and satisfy the requirements of the RVM bullets above.

13) Question:

On July 1, 2018, the threshold for obtaining certified cost and pricing data increased from $750,000 to $2,000,000 (two million dollars). The change was authorized by the Department of Defense pursuant to a class deviation, (2018‐O0015) pending official rulemaking and publication in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). The class deviation implements Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year 2018, which raised the certified pricing threshold contained in the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act. The increased pricing threshold applies to negotiated prime contracts, subcontracts (if the prime contractor was required to furnish certified cost or pricing data), and the modification of any contract or subcontract entered into after June 30, 2018. Request the above change in certified cost and pricing data threshold be acknowledged with respect to this solicitation and that the awarded contract be modified to incorporate any corresponding change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In addition, the class deviation also included contract clauses to be used in lieu of FAR clauses 52.215‐12 and 52.215‐13 for DoD contracts with respect to subcontractor certified cost and pricing data. Request the solicitation also be updated to include the following:

FAR 52.215‐12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications (Deviation 2018‐O0015); FAR 52.215‐13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications (Deviation 2018‐O0015); FAR 52.230‐1 Cost Accounting Standards and Notices and Certification (Deviation 2018‐O0015); and FAR 52.230‐2 Cost Accounting Standards and Notices and Certification (Deviation 2018‐O0015).

Answer: The Government will not amend this solicitation to include the FAR Clauses referenced above for this competition.

14) Questions: Contract Attachment J-1, cites NAVSEA OP-4 Rev 11; Ammunition and Explosive Safety Afloat. Section 3.700 Armament requires all stowage for armament, ammunition, ordnance and pyrotechnics be in accordance with NAVSEA OP-4. Our experience in designing to OP-4 requires multiple meetings with the Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity (NOSSA) and presentations to their Weapons System Explosives Safety Review Board (WSESRB). Section C 1.6 of the Statement of Work (SOW) list work groups but does not mention a weapons WG. Was this an omission on the part of the Government, and if so should the offeror plan for this additional WG?

Answer: No. EPF ships have limited armament for ship self protection. Subsequently Anti-terrorist and Force Protection (AT/FP) capabilities, which are limited to installation of 50 CAL machine guns and crew served guns has already been briefed to NOSSA and the decision made to inspect the design and final material solution using the inspectors of the lower level Explosives Safety Design Validation (ESDV) board.

15) Question: The Contract notes the desire to offer equipment that is consistent with that currently in use by MSC. We know MSC currently uses LM-2500 gas turbines for primary propulsion on their T-AKR 310 glass. Given the speed requirements for EPF will the Government accept Gas Turbines as "an or equal" to diesel propositional?

Answer: As stated in Section L.2.2.1, Factor 1 Commonality, it is the offers responsibility to provide justification for the assertion of equality including supportability of proposed equipment.

16) Question: We have both a detailed build specification as well as top level detailed schematics, which we assume are equivalent to Key Plans discussed in Contract Statement of Work 2.1.1 Contractor Ship Specification. Given we have both, what is the governments preference?

Answer: The Contractor Ship Specification is the preferred document, although either is contractually acceptable.

17) Question: Will the government consider operator input as sufficient evidence of full scale sea keeping capability and easy of operation or are detailed measurements, tests, and reports required as references?

Answer: Its the offer's responsibility to decide the level of detail necessary to demonstrate design maturity and ease of operation.

18) Question: Section C 1.6 discusses the formation of working groups which shall meet on a "quarterly basic or in concert with SPPCs". Given the complexity of the aviation support facilities and topside design integration, more frequent meetings with the government may be required to fully understand the requirements and integrate the capabilities into our design. Will the Government support more frequent meetings?

Answer: Yes, if required. As noted in same section (C 1.6) meetings can be at contractor's facilities, or virtually via phone, VTC, or WebEx.

19) Questions: Our assumption is the deck space just forward of the flight deck is being provided to permit the ship to host a two aircraft detachment of H-60 helicopters. As currently configured the existing EPFs appears incapable of handling the non-folding variant of the MH-60 used by Special Forces. The Contract Attachment J-1, section3.588 states the "deck space adjacent to flight deck shall be sized to park one (1) Navy Type/Model Series H-60 Helicopter. Is the MH-60 considers to be in this grouping?

Answer: The MH-60 is not part of the current mix of aircraft as noted in Table 3-23 of the Performance Specification.

20) Questions: Contact Attachment J-1, Section 3.573 states the vessel must be capable of moving a single ISO TEU container weighting up to 27,000lbs between the mission deck and flight deck, but also states the ship must have the organic capability to move up to 10,000lbs of cargo in a single lift within the mission bay. These two requirements appear to conflict. Our belief is the ship must be able to both embark and move TEUs sized loads within the mission bay as well as to transition them to the flight deck, requiring both a TEU handling system as well as either a crane or elevator. Request the government clarify the requirement.

Answer: The organic capability to move TEU’s once embarked is provided by a TEU handling system and a 10k fork truck.

21) Questions: Contact attachment J-1, section 3.602.1 Anchor Line Marking, implies one anchor, although many ports in Europe and the Orient require two anchors when backing to the quay wall. Will the government clarify the requirement for EPF?

Answer: While Mediterranean Moore with two anchors under foot is a desirable attribute for many ships, it is not required for EPF class ships.

22) Questions: While Contract Attachment J-1, section 3.575 notes the ramp shall be designed to clear a pier curb height of 1.25 ft with a fender offset of 3.28ft, the performance specification is silent on the need for fendering, either its use or carriage. Will the government clarify this requirement?

Answer: As noted in J-1, section 3.575, EPF is expected to typically stand off the pier by up to 1.25ft distance. The EPF will embark fendering as part of a mission load, also referred to as an Adaptive Force Package (AFP), when operations require it to come pier side in ports that do not provide fenders.

23) Questions: Contract attachment J-1, section 3.588.42 requires the JP-5 System be arranged to permit JP-5 transfer between JP-5 storage tanks and ship's main propulsion fuel storage tanks. This is atypical of other designs we've developed. Will the Government expand on why these two systems are being interconnected?

Answer: EPF classed ships are 1st and foremost transports for personnel, supplies and equipment (PSE). While design to support aviation missions, aviation mission could be few and far between other mission. Subsequently, JP-5 load, and if present decreases other loads that would typically be embanked. The ability to transfer Jp-5 into the ship's DFM storage tanks allows for the ship to burn down un-used Jp-5 in preparation for its next mission assignment.

24) Questions

25) Answers 26)