N00024-18-R-5200_Bidder's_Question_Responses_5.25.18.pdf

BIDDER’S QUESTIONS RESPONSES – MAY 25, 2018

FEDBIZOPPS VERSION

N00024-18-R-5200 – Cooperative Engagement Capability Design Agent & Engineering Services

Question No.: 0016

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP

Paragraph 2.6 Non-Gov’t and commercial Standards, Specifications and other applicable publications

Paragraph 3.1.1.11.3.1

1.1.1.1.1.1 Integrated

Product and Process Development (IPPD) Completion Tasks

Paragraph 3.2.1 Element 1: Software Development Approach

CMMI-DEV+IPPDD V1.2

Capability maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level

For completion tasks, the Contractor shall implement an IPPD team approach for the performance of this contract using Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 5 methodologies as referenced in CMMI-DEV+IPPD V1.2 or higher.

Offerors shall also submit an SDP rationale which describes why their specific approach is appropriate for the system to be procured, developed or maintained and how their proposed processes are equivalent to those articulated by CMMI® capability level 3.

Proprietary Non-Proprietary

Question/Comment & Requested Action

Please elaborate on the requirement for CMMI level certification, as follows:

(i) Is it sufficient for the Prime Contractor to be at a Level 5 and flow down their processes to subcontractors, as well as maintain oversight of subcontractor processes? Or, do subcontractors need to be certified at CMMI Level 5 as well as the Prime?

(ii) Are Completion CLINs required to be performed using CMMI Level 5 processes, per paragraph 3.1.1.11.3.1?

Government Response

(i) It is not sufficient for a CMMI Level 5-certified prime contractor to flow down processes to subcontractors. Subcontractors must be certified at CMMI Level 5. Please see solicitation amendment 0004 for updated language clarifying this requirement.

(ii) Yes.

Question No.: 0017

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 97 Paragraph 3.3.2.2 CEC Facility

From the RFP: The Contractor shall possess a Defense Security Service TOP SECRET facility clearance with TOP SECRET personnel clearances and TOP SECRET safeguarding capability.

Is it sufficient for only the Prime contractor to have the TOP SECRET facility and safeguarding capability?

Government Response

Yes.

Question No.: 0018

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 85 Paragraph 3.2.4.1.1 Software Transition

…The Contractor shall support the transition of software maintenance to the Government as described in the STrP

(CDRL A097).

It is unclear from this RFP and previous discussions with IWS what the path is for CEC. In the past, government leadership has emphasized the need for CEC and Combat Systems to evolve quickly (with the pace of threats) while maintaining backward compatibility with unchanged CEC units. However, this RFP focuses on maintenance and sustainment efforts, vice capability, speed of evolution, and innovation. Furthermore, the transition of SW maintenance from industry to government at the end of the 5-year POP seems to underscore the CEC DA/ES role as a short-term maintenance provider leading to the end of future CEC innovations. Does the government plan to continue to evolve CEC to pace emerging threats beyond this POP, or is this the last POP where software development and maintenance will be performed by a Prime Contractor?

Government Response

The statement of work in this solicitation defines the requirements during the period of performance for the resultant contract. Section C Paragraph 3.2.1 Advanced Studies, includes level-of-effort tasking that will require the contractor to deliver innovative solutions to support the next generation of CEC improvements. Furthermore, some of the sample problems under Section L of the solicitation are intended to demonstrate potential future program requirements and how the requirements may evolve.

The Government does not anticipate that industry involvement with CEC software efforts will end with this contract.

Question No.: 0019

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 170

Section L Paragraph 2.6 Major Subcontractor Proposals

For the purposes of this solicitation, major subcontractors are defined as any subcontractor proposed to perform 5% or more of the total hours under the contract … Major subcontractors may submit proposals or supporting information directly to the Government

Are all subcontractors who meets the definition of a “major subcontractor” required to submit proposals and/or supporting information directly to the government?

Government Response

Section L of the solicitation outlines the supporting information required to be submitted for major subcontractors proposed under certain contracting arrangements. While major subcontractor proposals or supporting information may be submitted as part of the prime offeror’s proposal, major subcontractors have the option of submitting required information directly to the Government.

[A response to question 0020 is not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0021

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 83 Paragraph 3.2.1 Advanced Studies

The Contractor shall participate in advanced capability TIMs and provide trade studies, design studies, technical feasibility evaluations, analysis, and documentation required to define a capability as Technical Report – Study/Services, Advanced Studies. The Contractor shall provide estimates for software engineering and coding effort required to integrate third-party components into a CEC release as Technical Report – Study/Services, Advanced Studies.

What is the expected percentage of effort distribution for the “…participate in advanced capability TIMs and provide trade studies, design studies, technical feasibility evaluations, analysis, and documentation…” versus the “…shall provide estimates for software engineering and coding effort required to integrate third-party components into a CEC…”? These two different efforts will require very different skill sets and skill levels for the hours to be provided as part of this LOE task.

Per Section L, Paragraph 3.2.9 of the solicitation:

The Government has determined that the CLIN X100 series and CLIN X300 series skill mixes provided in Attachment 19 are sufficient to complete the work for all LOE CLINs. The Government developed the labor mix based on historical experience with successful contracts for similar scope. As such, while the Offeror’s proposed skill mixes may deviate from this estimate, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed skill mixes using supporting documentation provided by the Offeror. If the Offeror deviates from the Government-provided skill mixes set forth in the solicitation, the Offeror shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the proposed Staffing Plan will meet the Government’s requirements with the proposed technical approach. Under no circumstances will the Government consider offers wherein the proposed Section B hours for any LOE CLIN deviate from the number of direct labor hours set forth in Section B of this solicitation.

The solicitation does not treat 3.2.1 as two distinct efforts. The scope of the associated CLIN covers the definition of capability, design, and development, and may include software engineering and code prototyping.

Question No.: 0022

RFP 83 Paragraph 3.2.1 Advanced Studies

The Contractor shall participate in advanced capability TIMs and provide trade studies, design studies, technical feasibility evaluations, analysis, and documentation required to define a capability as Technical Report – Study/Services, Advanced Studies. …. When directed by the Government, Contractor personnel involved in this process shall sign non-disclosure agreements and firewall its efforts and participation from vendor/company internal research and development efforts.

CEC is integral to the CNO’s Maritime Superiority and the Fleet Forces Design (Network Ships / Weapons) which deserves to have the best and brightest applied to this effort. The firewall requirement does not lend itself for the contractor to apply it best personnel to this work if they are to be precluded from working some IRAD efforts.

(i) Please stipulate under what conditions or circumstances the government would require this firewall to be enforced.

(ii) What is the remedy required should an IRAD already be in place?

Please see solicitation amendment 0004 for updated language in the referenced paragraph.

Question No.: 0023

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 84 Paragraph 3.2.2.1

The Contractor shall upgrade the hardware lab, software lab, external antenna range, and other facilities to incorporate provided GFP to meet the requirements of this contract.

(i) Is this requirement addressing Government labs? If so, please identify which facilities, their locations, and their equipment lists. If this is a contractor lab, please state so.

(ii) Why is this a subsection under 3.2.2 Future System Capability Enhancements and Hardware Tech Refresh? It appears to be more related to 3.3.2 CEC Facility Management.

The tasking described under Section C, Paragraph 3.2.2.1 refers to the contractor’s facilities. Please see solicitation amendment 0004 for updated language in the referenced paragraph.

Question No.: 0024

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 83

Paragraph 3.2.2 Future System Capability Enhancements…

The Contractor shall provide for the element level development, design, test, and integration through FQT of future CEC software capabilities and hardware technology refresh initiatives TI. The Contractor shall evolve CEC capabilities through FQT. The Contractor shall support the development of prototypes, EDMs, and PPUs, and support experiments and demonstrations. The Contractor shall deliver a Technical Report – Study/Services.

What is the purpose of delivering a “…Technical Report – Study/Services” when the LOE tasks requires “…the element level development, design, test, and integration through FQT of future CEC software capabilities and hardware technology refresh initiatives TI”?

Technical reports are required as part of the technical documentation for work that will be performed under the contract.

Question No.: 0025

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

Post Award Milestone Schedule 1 Post Award Milestone

Schedule Bar graphs appear to start July 1, 2018

What is the expected contract start date? Post Award Milestone Schedule appears to indicate about July 1, 2019 but the beginning of each blue bar has a yellowish tint that implies some flexibility to this.

Government Response

The Government anticipates making a contract award for this procurement in or around Q3 of calendar year 2019. Because a specific start date is impractical to forecast at this time, a firm contract award date is not shown on the Post Award Milestone Schedule.

Question No.: 0026

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

Post Award Milestone Schedule 1 Post Award Milestone

Schedule AEGIS ACB-20 has no specific milestones except for the Delta SFR.

The only milestone on the Post Award Milestone Schedule for the AEGIS ACB-20 completion effort contains a single milestone for a Delta SFR while paragraph 3.3.1.8 also lists Exit Criteria of PDR, CDR, TRR, SBR, SIT and FQT. The contractor is expected to complete this ongoing effort that has a known current schedule. Will the detailed schedule for completion of this activity be provided?

Government Response

The Post Award Milestone Schedule shows the Delta SFR as the first milestone for the AEGIS ACB 20 development effort under CLIN 0001 of the solicitation. The purpose of the Delta SFR is to allow the successful offeror to obtain Government concurrence with its specific development approach for CLIN 0001. The anticipated FQT date is shown on the Product Card for the CEC 2.1.11.x software delivery for AEGIS ACB 20. The Product Cards are included in the Bidder’s Library and will also be provided as GFI under the contract. The dates for remaining CLIN 0001 milestones (between Delta SFR and FQT) shall be identified by each Offeror.

Question No.: 0027

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 92

3.3.1.4 CEC Capabilities

Integration with AEGIS

ACB-20

The Contractor shall conduct the Delta System Functional Review (SFR)

Will the Government provide the previous SFR contents and results for the assessment of the effort to conduct a Delta SFR?

The SFR technical materials will be provided after contract award.

Question No.: 0028

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 97 3.3.3.2 CEC Facility

The Contractor shall have at least ten (10) technical personnel and five (5) non-technical personnel with an additional five (5) non-technical personnel for each key subcontractor that have current (completed within the last six (6) years, or have an investigation complete within the past ten (10) years and have a periodic reinvestigation in progress) TIER 5 (TF) or TIER 5 Reinvestigation (TFR), formerly known as Single Scope Background Investigation, that has been favorably adjudicated to the Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 6/4 criteria.

(i) What is the perceived need / risk requiring, “…an additional five (5) non-technical personnel for each key subcontractor that have current…”?

(ii) Is this requirement only for those key subcontractors that may require access to this level of classified material or for all key subcontractors that have this current level of access?

Please see solicitation amendment 0004 for updated language relating to the referenced requirement.

[A response to question 0029 is not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0030

RFP 11 3.2.1 Element 1:

Software Development

The Offeror shall provide Software Lines of Code (SLOC) estimates showing new/modified/reused code along with justification for the underlying assumptions for CLIN 0001.

Given that all CEC software has not been provided, is it acceptable to only provide estimates showing new/modified/reused code for the software that has been provided?

Yes.

Question No.: 0031

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 11 3.2.1 Element 1:

Software Development

The Offeror shall describe its System of Systems System Engineering approach, including its plan to manage multiple sets of requirements and interfaces, communicate with multiple platform/sensor organizations, and affect multiple warfare areas.

Please explain the rationale for this requirement incorporated in 3.2.1 Element 1 for Software Development and not in 3.2.2 Element 2 for Systems Engineering Process.

Please see solicitation amendment 0004 for an update to the organization of requirements under Section L Paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

Question No.: 0032

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 11

3.2.7 Element 7:

Interfacing with Key Stakeholders

The Offeror shall identify key stakeholders for CLIN 0001 tasking, including internal CEC program stakeholders and key stakeholders supporting programs with which CEC will be integrated.

CLIN 0001 is the completion task for CEC Capabilities for Integration with AEGIS Advanced Capability Build (ACB) 20. Will the Government please provide, at a minimum, a list of companies and government organizations they consider to be “key stakeholders”?

Please refer to Section C, Paragraph 3.1.1.3, Coordination with Other Organizations.

[Responses to questions 0033-0039 are not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

[Responses to questions 0040-0042 contain controlled unclassified information and will be posted to the Bidder’s Library]

[Responses to questions 0043-0044 are not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0045

RFP 154 & 196 3 / 252.234-7001 252.234-7001 NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (APR 2008)

Request removal of 252.234-7001 NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (APR 2008) contained on Page 196 at the end of Section L be removed as it appears to be in conflict with Section I Clause 252.234-7002 EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DEVIATION 2015-O0017) (SEPT 2015). The Section I Clause is the more recent version and is addressing the specific CLINs in this solicitation.

Government Response

Please see solicitation amendment 0004, which replaces DFARS 252.234-7001, NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (APR 2008), with DFARS 252.234-7001, NOTICE OF

EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DEVIATION 2015-O0017) (SEP 2015).

Question No.: 0046

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 187 3.8.5

The Offeror shall include a copy of any Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) in support of proposed labor rates. If no FPRA is available, the Offeror shall provide Forward Price Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) or data from any other cognizant Government agency. If no data is available from a cognizant Government agency, the Offeror shall provide other forms of rate substantiation (such as payroll data, screen shots, information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.).

Then further….The Offeror shall provide the following data to substantiate the proposed indirect costs for the prime, proposed inter- organizational business units and major subcontractors proposed under cost-reimbursable type subcontracts:

Five years of actual, incurred rates and associated base volumes for each proposed indirect and G&A pool, indicating the beginning and end dates for each fiscal year.

For each proposed indirect or G&A rate that is lower than the corresponding actual, incurred rates billed in the last five years by five percentage points or more, provide a derivation - including assumptions, calculations and substantiating evidence - of its estimation of that rate's annual cost pools and base volumes for each year of contract performance.

For each proposed indirect or G&A rate, provide a list of any significant increases expected in the cost pool through the end of performance of the anticipated contract

For each proposed indirect or G&A rate, provide a complete list of the contracts included in calculating the rate's estimated base. This list should include the expected expiration date and expected annual business volume for each contract on it through the end of the performance of the anticipated contract.

In the event proposed indirect rates are lower than verifiable rates, the Government will apply an upward adjustment to the proposed costs unless the proposed rates are sufficiently supported.

The highlighted paragraph information is what is used to reach FPRAs with cognizant government agencies, so if the Offeror is submitting FPRAs/FPRPs, also submitting the highlighted information seems redundant. Is the Offeror to either submit appropriate FPRAs/FPRPs, or the highlighted information, or both?

Government Response

Per the solicitation, offerors must submit FPRAs and FPRRs if at all possible. If an FPRA or FPRR is not available, the offeror shall provide other forms of rate substantiation.

Regardless of whether an offeror submits FPRAs or FPRRs, the offeror must also submit the additional data referenced in Section L Paragraph 3.8.5.

[A response to question 0047 is not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0048

RFP 196

Section L / Paragraph 3.8.7 / Attach 17

The Offeror shall submit a cost model in the form of an Excel workbook that calculates its total proposed costs for the entire contract, including all line items that form the basis of the Offeror's Total Evaluated Price. Please see Attachment 17 for a sample workbook format.

Attachment 17, reference the tabs titled "Cost Model", "Rates", "Direct Rates", "Indirect Rates", and "CLIN 0001 Inputs". Are the years listed intended to reflect the Government's Fiscal Year (example:

Year "2020" = FY 2020 where the start date is 01 October 2019 and end date is 30 September 2020) or Calendar Year?

Please clarify.

Attachment 17 provides a sample template that each Offeror may tailor as necessary to reflect the Offeror’s proposal and accounting or estimating practices. The years listed in the cost model should reflect calendar year, but other fiscal cycles may be used provided that the definition is clearly indicated in the cost model.

[A response to question 0049 is not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0050

RFP Exhibit A - 1423s, Block

BLK 16: BLK 8: Approval is for format, technical content and accuracy. Government response time is 30 calendar days. Any rejected submission shall be corrected and resubmitted within 30 calendar days of the rejection. If no response received from Government, the Contractor should consider the submittal rejected.

For CDRLs requiring Government approval, should the last sentence be revised to state the Contractor should assume acceptance if there's no response from the Government?

In all CDRLs requiring Government review and acceptance, replace the last sentence in Block 16, Block 8 as follows:

"If no response received from Government, the Contractor should consider the submittal accepted."

The Government will amend the solicitation to incorporate an updated version of Exhibit A that clarifies the language relating to CDRL acceptance procedures.

Question No.: 0051

Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Proprietary Information

RFP 189

Section L / Paragraph 3.8.4 and Attach 17

The Government anticipates making a contract award for this procurement in or around Q3 of calendar year 2019.

In Attachment 17, the Excel file tabs "Cost Model", "Rates", "Direct Rates", "Indirect Rates", and "CLIN 0001 Inputs" include years 2020 through 2025. Based on an anticipated award in Q3 of calendar year 2019, should the Excel file also include an input for year 2019?

Please clarify.

Attachment 17 provides a sample template that each Offeror may tailor as necessary to reflect the Offeror’s proposal and accounting or estimating practices. Offerors may add additional years to the cost model as necessary to capture the proposed costs.

[A response to question 0052 is not included in this release, but will be made available at a later date]

Question No.: 0053

RFP 184 Section L, Paragraph 3.4.2.1

For each entry in the list citing an asserted rights category other than the standard license rights applicable to commercial TD as set forth in the DFARS 252.227-7015 clause, the Offeror shall provide a complete description of the asserted rights (e.g., a specially negotiated license, or the license customarily offered to the public); this information may be provided by referencing any proposed nonstandard or commercial license agreement that is attached to the list, but in all cases, the non-standard or commercial license must be attached for the Government to review.

Section 3.4.2.1 states that nonstandard or commercial licenses must be attached for the Government to review. The page limitation for the Data Rights Volume does not accommodate including copies of software licenses.

Recommend the Government either allow unlimited page count for a license attachment in the Data Rights Volume or add a license attachment to Volume IX – SF33 / Completed Contract.

Please see amendment 0004 for clarification of the application of page count limitations in the Data Rights Volume.