N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_2.pdf

N0002418R2300

FFG(X) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (CD) RFP QUESTIONS

# Question Response

RFP BIDDER'S QUESTIONS RELEASE 2 (#18-33)

Note: The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

In the pricing tables, CLIN 0002, DATA, is annotated as “NOT SEPARATELY PRICED.” In the pricing notes, NOTE A (which applies to CLIN 0002 only) requires that each line item on the CDRL List be assigned a Price Group and an Estimated Total Price.

The Offeror believes that the NOTE A requirement returns very little informational value to the Government because only minimal costs will be attributed to each of the CDRL line items.

The instructions for completing DD Form 1423 yields the following guidance in estimating costs for CDRL line items:

Price Group II:

• Data developed by the Contractor, for the primary contracted effort, requiring additional effort to conform to Government data requirements.

• Total Estimated Price represents the cost of Government data requirements (exclusive of data for the primary effort) plus CDRL administrative and handling costs.

Price Group III:

• Data developed by the Contractor, for internal use in performing the primary contracted effort, requiring no significant additional effort to conform the

Government data requirements.

• Total Estimated Price represents only CDRL administrative and handling costs.

Price Group IV:

• Data developed by the Contractor, as part of their normal operating practices, requiring minimal effort to conform to Government data requirements.

• Total Estimated Price to be estimated as “zero” costs.

For the following reasons:

1. All costs for the primary contracted effort (including data costs) will fall into CLINs 0001, 0003, and 0004.

2. CLIN 0002 is designated as NOT SEPARATELY PRICED.

3. The vast majority of Concept Design documentation will fall into Price Groups III and IV.

4. Very little informational value is returned to the Government by the NOTE A requirement.

5. This very requirement has been deleted in other recent RFPs.

It is requested that that the Navy remove pricing NOTE A and thereby relieve Offerors of the requirement to assign a Price Group and a Total Estimated

Price to each CDRL line item.

The Government does not concur that NOTE A returns very little informational value. As per NOTE A, "Offeror shall complete the

"Price Group" and "Estimated Total Price" blocks of each data item on the Contract Data Requirements List(s)."

Section C requires Offerors to produce a ship design in accordance with Attachment J-1. J-1 requires much more than design characteristics. It has specific performance requirements such as design reviews, model testing, and multiple analyses. It is unclear what work in J-1 will be done under the Concept

Design contract and what will be done under the Detail Design and Construction contract.

1. It is requested that the Government clarify how the J-1 is to be used and what work in J-1 is to be done during the Concept Design phase?

2. Is all scope of work for the Concept Design contract identified in the J-5 CDRL?

1. Attachment J-1, FFG(X) System Specification, is provided to detail the current baseline requirements for the FFG(X) ship design.

Conceptual Design scope is limited to the efforts defined in Section

C of the RFP (Statement of Work) and deliverables are limited to those defined in Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL); other efforts and products described in Attachment J-1 are provided for informational purposes only.

2. The scope of work and deliverables for the Conceptual Design contract are contained in Section C of the RFP and Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List, respectively.

C.1.1.1

The Contractor shall perform design development and production planning activities, using Attachment J-1, FFG(X) System Specification and Attachment J-

2, Government Furnished Information (GFI), to address technical solutions for the future FFG(X) in support of the program goal of cost effectively providing all the capabilities required for FFG(X).

C.1.2.3

The Contractor shall submit a Technical Approach and Project Schedule (CDRL A002) which addresses the conduct of all Design Studies and Analyses outlined in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package.

Several analysis products and design reviews are required in “FFG(X) CD N00024-18-R-2300 J-1 FFG(X) System Specification_01Nov2017” that are not specifically cited in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package or the RFP SOW.

For Example:

Section 076f:

“A FMECA shall be prepared on those systems and equipment specified in Table 1 in accordance with SAE JA1000 (Appendix A.10).”

Section 233d11:

“Details and arrangements of the electronic fuel injection system and a Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) shall be submitted for review to demonstrate that failure of an electronic control system will not result in the loss of essential services for the operation of the engine and that operation of the engine will not be lost or degraded beyond an acceptable performance criteria of the engine.”

Section 202 f:

“Design Reviews Design reviews shall include the following specific reviews and audits. These reviews and audits may be combined with the periodic reviews, subject to Government approval. A detailed schedule shall be provided for approval including but not limited to all design reviews, system requirements review, system design review, software specification review, preliminary design review, critical design review, test readiness review, functional and physical configuration 5 audits, deliveries, tests, production and manufacturing and procurement lead times, submittals of CDRLS and turn around review cycle for CDRLS.”

1. Will any analysis and design required by Attachment J-1 that is not specifically cited in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package or the RFP SOW, be required to be performed and submitted during the Conceptual Design phase?

2. If so, which analysis and/or design elements are required, and under which CDRL(s) should they be submitted?

1. No. CD scope and deliverables are fully contained within

Section C of the RFP (Statement of Work) and Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), respectively. Details regarding other analysis and design activities are provided in

Attachment J-1, FFG(X) System Specification, for informational purposes only.

2. Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), contains all CD deliverable requirements.

Provide information that describes the parent design characteristics as necessary to explain the plan to modify this design. Artifacts could include:

(a) displacement; (b) margins; (c) midship section; (d) hydrostatics; (e) combat capability; (f) general arrangement; (g) lines plan (including offsets) and hull appendages drawing; curves of form; (h) major equipment list and associated capacities (prime movers, generators, AC plants, etc.); (i) machinery and shafting arrangement; (j) damage control and survivability features; (k) speed/power information; endurance range calculation (range and speed); (l) mass properties report (to at least 1 digit Ship Work Breakdown Structure level, including foreign Work Breakdown Structure description if nonstandard); (m)

Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA or equivalent); (n) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and cooling load analysis; (o) design/service life margins inherent to design; (p) reliability/maintainability metrics; (q) design loads for structural design; (r) structural details used; shock loads used; (s) welding requirement(s) source; (t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix); (u) material type(s) for hull, superstructure, and mast; and (v) ship manning requirements.

Possibly other items in addition to above.

1. Most if not all of this data will need to be modified and updated prior to ship construction. Can the Government clarify how much of this data needs to be provided in response to the RFP?

2. The parent ship data is extensive, estimated at more than 7500 pages and contains large format drawings. If it needs to be submitted with the proposal, can the data be provided in electronic media only?

1. As modification of a parent design is part of the scope of

Conceptual Design (CD), Offerors may decide which artifacts to include with the proposal in order to explain the proposed technical approach. Offerors should provide as much parent design data as is deemed necessary by the Offeror to explain the technical approach proposed to modify the parent design to meet FFG(X) requirements.

2. Yes, parent design data may be submitted via electronic media

(CD ROM or DVD ROM only).

FAR clause 52.222-60 (Paycheck Transparency) is now marked Reserved in the FAR, as of November 6, 2017.

Due to RFP instructions, we cannot take exception to any clause and request removal.

Recommend the Government remove this clause from the solicitation.

Per the FAR, the clause, 52.222-60 (Paycheck Transparency) is no longer required and will be removed in a future RFP amendment.

Indicate whether the facilities are certified, the certifying authority, and date of certification.

Request the Government clarify which specific certifications that Offeror's need to identify for proposed facilities.

Offerors should identify all certification information for proposed facilities. If no certifications are held, Offerors should state that information in the proposal.

Will the GFE costs be included in Total evaluated price of each proposed ship for Detail Design and Construction?

For example, The cost of a Ship with 16 cell VLS will be less than the same Ship with 32 cell VLS.

No further price details on Detail Design & Construction (DD&C) efforts are provided at this time. The DD&C RFP will include the information on how price will be evaluated.

During Detail Design and Construction, to accommodate specification requirements at the Objective Level rather than at the Threshold Level will result in a more expensive ship.

1. What is more important to the Navy, Capability or Price?

2. What will be the incentive to offerors to propose a ship with more capability when as a result, the ship is more expensive to build?

The objective and threshold values are provided Attachment J-1, System Specification. The Navy also provided Emphasis areas during the Industry day brief, which provided potential Offerors insight into what the Navy values. It is up to the Offerors to determine how to meet the Navy's desires while analyzing trade space and balancing capability versus cost.

C.1.1.1

The Contractor shall perform design development and production planning activities, using Attachment J-1, FFG(X) System Specification and Attachment J-

2, Government Furnished Information (GFI), to address technical solutions for the future FFG(X) in support of the program goal of cost effectively providing all the capabilities required for FFG(X).

C.1.2.3

The Contractor shall submit a Technical Approach and Project Schedule (CDRL A002) which addresses the conduct of all Design Studies and Analyses outlined in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package.

Several analysis products and design reviews are required in “FFG(X) CD N00024-18-R-2300 J-1 FFG(X) System Specification_01Nov2017” that are not specifically cited in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package or the RFP SOW.

For Example:

Section 076f:

“A FMECA shall be prepared on those systems and equipment specified in Table 1 in accordance with SAE JA1000 (Appendix A.10).”

Section 233d11:

“Details and arrangements of the electronic fuel injection system and a Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) shall be submitted for review to demonstrate that failure of an electronic control system will not result in the loss of essential services for the operation of the engine and that operation of the engine will not be lost or degraded beyond an acceptable performance criteria of the engine.”

Section 202 f:

“Design Reviews Design reviews shall include the following specific reviews and audits. These reviews and audits may be combined with the periodic reviews, subject to Government approval. A detailed schedule shall be provided for approval including but not limited to all design reviews, system requirements review, system design review, software specification review, preliminary design review, critical design review, test readiness review, functional and physical configuration 5 audits, deliveries, tests, production and manufacturing and procurement lead times, submittals of CDRLS and turn around review cycle for CDRLS.”

1. Will any analysis and design required by Attachment J-1 that is not specifically cited in Attachment J-5, CDRL Package or the RFP SOW, be required to be performed and submitted during the Conceptual Design phase?

2. If so, which analysis and/or design elements are required, and under which CDRL(s) should they be submitted?

1. No. CD scope and deliverables are fully contained within

Section C of the RFP (Statement of Work) and Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), respectively. Details regarding other analysis and design activities are provided in

Attachment J-1, FFG(X) System Specification, for informational purposes only.

2. Attachment J-5, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), contains all CD deliverable requirements.

In the Detail Design and Construction competition will all of the Offerors be bidding to the same Build Specification and/or System Specification or will they be bidding to different Build Specifications and/or System Specifications that the Offeror produced and agreed upon with the Navy during the conceptual design phase?

DD&C will be a full and open competition based on the Navy's

System Specification. No other information regarding DD&C can be provided at this time.

DFARS 204.7304 prescribes that 252.204-7009 should be invoked “in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part

12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, for services that include support for the Government’s activities related to safeguarding covered defense information and cyber incident reporting.” (emphasis added)

Contrast DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, which DFARS 204.7304 prescribes to be invoked in all solicitations and contracts except those solicitations and contracts that are solely for the acquisition of COTS items. Moreover, DFARS

252.204-7012(i)(5) cross-references 252.204-7009 in a way that provides further support for the position that the -7009 clause should only be invoked in support services contracts that directly support Government cyber incident response activities.

Will the Government remove DFARS 252.204-7009 from the RFP because the FFG(X) Concept Design RFP is not a contract for services in support of the

Government’s activities related to safeguarding covered defense information and cyber incident reporting?

DFARS clause 252.204-7009 (Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information) will be removed in a future RFP amendment.

How does Cost Reduction Candidate CDRL different from value engineering? It is very similar to value engineering. However, it does not necessarily follow the standard process and structure of value engineering.

Updates to the System Specification and GFI create a challenge for updating design products; is there a lock-down period?

If so, would the same lock down system specification and GFI be used for DD&C?

Yes, the System Specification and GFI will be updated at contract award to form the basis for contract deliverables. Informational updates to the System Specification and GFI will be posted to the

IDE/Bidder's Library throughout the performance of CD leading up to DD&C RFP release. However the informational updates will not be contractually binding for CD.

No other information regarding DD&C can be provided at this time.

30 J-1 Attachment indicates model testing (etc.). Are these required for CD? Please refer to the response to Question #20.

Will there be a separate IWS award for combat system integrator? There will be a combat system integration and test competition.

However, the combat system integrator will be responsible for integration and testing of combat systems only. The DD&C Prime

Contractor will be responsible for topside arrangement and layouts to include CIC design.

The Industry Day Brief focuses on acquisition cost and briefly mentions total ownership cost (TOC). For emphasis areas, there is a requirement for increased accommodation which implies increase manning, which will increase TOC. How does Industry propose recommendations and what trade space do we have?

CDRL B030 (Cost Reduction Candidate) is the venue to provide feedback to government on TOC drivers.

The Government is still developing total crew size to meet the

FFG(X) requirement set. The CD requirement is for accommodations only. Evaluation criteria for DD&C are still being reviewed.

Please provide POCs for Government support contractors Tecolote, Alion, Booz Allen, and Engility. For Engility, Karim Rasul (program manager for PMS 515), karim.rasul@engilitycorp.com

For BAH, James Donegan (project manager for PMS 515), donegan_james@bah.com

For Tecolote, Lauren Casapulla (contracts manager for PMS 515), lcasapulla@tecolote.com

For Alion, Lorie Webb (program manager for PMS515), lwebb@alionscience.com