N00024-18-R-5200_Question-Comments_3.6.18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0002418R5200
About this file
This package contains an Excel spreadsheet that provides responses to questions received from industry in connection with this procurement. NAVSEA is continuing to review the questions received and intends to post additional responses when they are available.
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Template
| Solicitation N00024-18-R-5200 |
| Cooperative Engagement Capability Design Agent/Engineering Services |
| Government Responses to Questions and Comments From Industry |
| March 6, 2017 |
| Item No. | FBO Response Date | Source Document | Page Number | Section/Paragraph | Question/Comment | Proposed Action/Change | Government Response |
| 1 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | General | General | Will the Government be including sample technical tasks as part of the evaluation criteria? Will these sample tasks be awardable? | Recommend that the Government provide details of sample tasks. Recommend Sections L and M include priced sample tasks that enable evaluation of technical understanding and cost realism for specific anticipated work. | A set of sample problems will be included in Sections L and M of the formal solicitation. The formal solicitation will state whether any sample problem(s) are awardable. |
| 2 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 70 | Section C, 3.1.1.5.1 and .2 | The current CLIN structure shows that each of the common tasks (as described in Section C 3.1.1, 3.1.2, etc.) are applicable to CLINs 0001 through 0008. |
a) If CLINs 0001 through 0008 are independently managed, then it appears that, for example, CDRL A006 (INTEGRATED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT REPORT (IPMR)) would be required for each CLIN. Is that the Government’s intent or is the requirement to produce a single IPMR?
| b) Also, it is not clear whether there should be a CLIN or SOW section that is used to provide a single CEC DA/ES program-level view of cost and schedule status (to include all CLINs). | Recommend that the Government clarify delivery of common CDRLs, such as the IPMR, by CLIN, program level or other. | |||||||
| Recommend that the Government consider a single IPMR for completion tasks and a single IPMR for LOE tasks. | Section C will be updated to reflect the Government's intent to receive a single IPMR that includes all CLINs. CDRL deliveries will be further clarified in Exhibit A of the formal solicitation. | |||||||
| 3 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 135 | Section C, 3.3.2.7 | This paragraph states "The Contractor shall prepare and deliver a Software Transition Plan (STrP) that addresses the products to be turned over during transition (software, hardware, tools, formats, and media) and the processes to enable the Government to perform software maintenance." Does the incumbent have a Software Transition plan to transition the specified artifacts to the future CEC DA/ES? | Can the government provide a representative Software Transition Plan (STrP) as part of the bidder's library? | The CDRL (with the applicable DID) will be provided in Exhibit A of the formal solicitation. The Government will not provide an example; however, the DID provides amplifying information. | |
| 4 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 73 | Section C, 3.1.1.11.2 | This paragraph indicates that transition strategies will be discussed at the post-awardee kickoff meeting. Will a full transition plan be required to be submitted at the kickoff meeting? | Please clarify | The formal solicitation will require Offerors to propose a transition/start-up plan. | |
| 5 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 73 | Section C, 3.1.1.11.2 | This paragraph indicates that transition strategies will be discussed at the post-awardee kickoff meeting. Will transition costs be segregated in the requested proposal so as not to be included in total evaluated costs? | Please clarify | Offerors should develop their WBS and cost proposal such that transition costs are easily identifiable by the cost evaluation team. | |
| 6 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 65 | Section C, 1.0 & various | The RFP specifies that the contractor will be required to provide significant infrastructure support (facilities, equipment, etc.) to support the CEC program. Will there be a specified contractor acquired property list (CAP) provided as part of the RFP? Will all bidders be required to include CAP costs as part of their proposal? | Please clarify | The Government will provide a list of equipment that may be necessary to establish an accredited lab for CEC development efforts. The formal solicitation will clarify the facilities requirements and how the Government will evaluate Offerors on those requirements. | |
| 7 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 88 | 3.1.4.3 | The third sentence of this Paragraph requires the Contractor to utilize DOORS for configuration control. However, DOORS is not an industry standard tool for configuration control of engineering drawings and design. | Recommend a change to the third sentence [specific recommended language removed] | The Government has revised the referenced section to read as follows: "These documents and definitions shall be made available to the Government. The Contractor shall define and provide the approved system tech refresh and obsolescence update designs in the Engineering Drawings and maintain these documents under configuration control in the TDP and maintain the document under configuration control." Note that this language is not final and is subject to change in the formal solicitation. The Government invites comments regarding the updated language. | |
| 8 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 91 | 3.1.4.13 | This paragraph requires delivery of the following Technical Data - "Government system tech refresh and obsolescence updates, operations, and support documents, engineering drawings, Installation Control Documents, and product drawings necessary for the Government to deliver, install, checkout, and support the updates for ships/sites". However, only two CDRLs are required (A032 for Engineering Drawings and A049 for Installation Control Drawings). |
| Please include the additional CDRL items required by this paragraph or remove the language requiring delivery of ". . .system tech refresh and obsolescence updates, . . . operations, and support documents, . . .and product drawings. . .". | The Government has revised the referenced section to read as follows: "the Contractor shall produce and deliver to the Government system tech refresh and obsolescence updates, Technical Data Packages, and Installation Control Drawings necessary for the Government to deliver, install, checkout, and support the updates for ships/sites in support of the tasks in this SOW." Note that this language is not final and is subject to change in the formal solicitation. The Government invites comments regarding the updated language. | |||||||
| 9 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | All | All | The Draft RFP does not contain Options for the Government to convert LOE CLINs to Completion CLINs. | Recommend that the Final RFP include requirements for converting LOE CLINs to Completion CLINs. | The formal solicitation will define a process for potential post-award conversion of LOE scope to completion scope. | |
| 10 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | Please explain the rationale for using CPIF for some CLINS and CPFF for other CLINS in the partial draft RFP. |
a. For CPIF CLINs, please provide a detailed incentive evaluation plan. How is the incentive fee calculated?
| b. Please discuss the rationale for your projected incentive plan during Industry Day. | Explain rationale; provide plans. | The Government selected the contract type for each set of line items according to the guidance in FAR Part 16. For CPIF CLINs, the only incentive will be the share line cost incentive, and the formal solicitation will contain clauses outlining the calculation of earned incentive fee. | ||||||
| 11 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | What are the small business goals for the upcoming DA/ES procurement? | |||
| a. Please provide historical data on small business goals and results for the incumbent contract. | Provide requested data. | The Government seeks to maximize the use of small and disadvantaged business concerns in the fulfillment of requirements under this procurement, especially in the performance of meaningful technical efforts. The formal solicitation will outline specific requirements and goals for subcontracting, as well as how the Government will evaluate proposed subcontracting plans and approaches. The Government is not able to provide specifics regarding the performance of the current contract. | ||||||
| 12 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | Can the Government provide expected hours for the LOE tasks? | Provide requested data. | The formal solicitation will specify the number of hours for each LOE line item. | |
| 13 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | To better understand the division of labor among all participants in delivering CEC to the Navy: Can the Government provide an overview of the budget sources and colors of money to be used for the Design Agent / Engineering Services effort? | Provide requested data. | The contract line item structure provided in the draft solicitation provides insight into the potential range of external programs and stakeholders that a resultant contract would support. However, the Government does not anticipate providing specifics regarding budget sources or colors of money. | |
| 14 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | What are the anticipated travel requirements for periodic reviews, IPTs, working groups, installation support and so forth? | Provide requested data. | The formal solicitation and the System Engineering Plan will provide further detail regarding required meetings, IPTs, WGs, etc. Travel requirements will depend on the Offeror's location and the locations of specific meetings, which are not always identified in advance. | |
| 15 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | How strictly will the Government apply the requirement to align the WBS to MIL Hdbk 881? | Follow general 881 guidelines and align WBS to SOW | The formal solicitiation attachments will include CSDR plans that follow MIL-HDBK-881. The Contractor must follow the CSDR plans for reporting. | |
| 16 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | Request an extension to submit bidder's library questions to provide time to review all of the documents and identify gaps. | |||
| Provide at a minimum three (3) additional weeks for industry to submit questions on the bidder's library. | The Government accepted questions regarding the Bidder's Library and Industry Day presentations through 22 December 2017. The Government will review and attempt to respond to questions received after that date, but a response may not be posted prior to release of the formal soliciation. | |||||||
| 17 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | Can bidders be provided with historical reliability and failure data? | Provide as GFI | There exists a vast universe of historical reliability and failure data for CEC. Please narrow the scope of the data request and explain why it is necessary to develop a proposal. | |
| 18 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | What resident CEC systems are available to the successful bidder? | Provide a description | The formal soliciation will include a GFE list outlining the equipment that will be provided. | |
| 19 | 3/6/18 | General | NA | NA | Can bidders be provided with the existing maintenance documentation including the maintenance decision trees? | Provide as GFI | This documentation will be provided to the successful Offeror at contract award. Please explain why this would be necessary to develop a proposal. | |
| 20 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | The TDP includes only DDS and CEP tactical CSCIs for CEC release 2.1.10.11_5.5B. Can the government provide a comprehensive list of what releases must be supported per ship class and what version of software by CSCI comprises that release? | Please provide comprehensive list along with the associated software. | The Government will provide the requested information in the Bidder's Library that accompanies the formal solicitation release. | |
| 21 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 5 | Section L, Page Size and Format | "Every paragraph, figure, and table shall be numbered; paragraphs within sections do not need to be numbered." --- Please clarify whether paragraphs need to be numbered as all paragraphs should be within sections (assume that each Element is considered a major section within a Volume). Are there any paragraphs not within a section? | Clarify numbering requirements. | The formal solicitation will clarify the numbering requirements. | |
| 22 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 6 | Section L, SF 33/Model Contract | The SF33/Model Contract section of the instructions asks for SF 33, and various sections of the RFP (A, B through I, J, etc.) to be included in Volume I. Is Volume I (Technical) the right reference or should there be an administrative volume separate from the technical volume? If this material should be included in Volume I, then will these items be included in the page count? | Clarify where (which volume) the administrative elements of the response should be included and provide explicit statement on what is excluded from page count. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 23 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | RFP Section J | RFP Section J – Exhibits and Other Attachments; The Offeror shall include the following completed attachments as part of their Volume I submittal: |
• Attachment J-xx Small Business Subcontracting Plan*
• Attachment J-xx Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government’s Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software submitted in response to 252.227-7017
• Attachment J-xx Guaranty Agreement for Corporate Guarantor**
| Please clarify whether these attachments are excluded from page count and whether they should be added as appendices to Volume I? | Clarify page count and placement. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | ||||
| 24 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | Section L, Volume I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach | "To this end, the Technical Proposal Volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror understands the CEC objectives and has a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements for accomplishing the efforts under this solicitation and the technologies involved." |
| Please clarify the expectations for demonstrating understanding of the solicitation requirements. Section C is extremely complex and involves a large set of technical requirements. It will take a large number of pages to ensure that all requirements are acknowledged. From the remaining set of instructions, it appears that the Government is only interested in specific topics, such as software development approach, test approach, systems engineering process, etc. Does the Government really intend for contractors to show compliance with all Section C requirements. Discussion of technologies involved is also not covered in the list of technical topics. | Recommend that the Government provide additional clarification on understanding of requirements versus responding to the individual technical topics. Recommend more specifics on discussion of technologies involved. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. The Government does not intend for Offerors to discuss each technical requirement individually. | ||||
| 25 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | Section L, Volume I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach | "The technical section must be sufficient to show how the Offeror proposes to comply with the Government's requirements and include a full explanation of the methodology and procedures to be followed. " |
Are the requirements being referred to here the complete set of technical requirements from Section C? If so, this may be impractical to accomplish given the large number of requirements.
It is not clear what is being referred to in terms of methodology and procedures. Are Offerors expected to describe methodology and procedures for meeting all technical requirements or in terms of the Volume Elements or other? Recommend that the Government remove the reference of compliance with requirements, and replace with the essential requirements that are adequate for proposal evaluation or clarify that the requirements are the ones described under the specific Volume I elements?
| Recommend more explicit instructions on how methodology and procedures should be provided (whether in the context of the Volume Elements, separately or other). | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. The Government does not intend for Offerors to discuss each technical requirement individually. The formal soliicitation will outline the specific topics that Offerors must address. | |||||||
| 26 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | Section L, Volume I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach | Volume I instructions include IMS (" Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be created and submitted using Microsoft Project. "), but the instructions for including IMS are only found in Volume III (management). | Clarify whether IMS should be included in Volume I (or only in Volume III)? | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 27 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | Section L, Volume I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach | Volume I instructions include description of risks and assumptions. Does the Government have a preference for how these should be placed in the Volume as the instructions imply organization by Elements and it is not clear where risks and assumptions should be placed. | Clarify volume organization. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 28 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, Contract-wide Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) | "The IMS shall be consistent with and traceable to the other aspects of the Offeror’s proposal and meet the requirements of Section C, paragraph 3.1.1.6, Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR), and its subparagraphs." |
| Should the above reference include paragraph 3.1.1.7 which describes the IMS? Also, it is not clear whether the "PEO IWS 6.0 IMS" has been provided in the bidders library. Additionally, the file "April CEC Milestone Chart" provided in Disk 2 cannot be opened (received error that it may be damaged). | Please clarify and provide PEO IWS 6.0 IMS. | The formal solicitation will include 3.1.1.7. The PEO IWS 6.0 IMS was included in the Bidder's Library for the draft solicitation. Please contact the PCO if you experience issues accessing any documents provided by the Government. | ||||||
| 29 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, Contract-wide Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) | The Government is requesting contract-wide IMS and individual IMSs that may require a large number of pages. | Clarify that the IMSs are to be provided as MS Project Files and that they can be included as appendices outside page count. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. IMSs will not count towards page count limits. | |
| 30 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, Contract-wide Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) | CWBS may require a large number of pages due to the complexity of Section C and CLINs. What is the Government's expectation for a CWBS, just the basic structure or detailed descriptions of elements, WBS dictionary, etc.? | Recommend page count and content clarification. Recommend CWBS be an attachment or appendix outside page count. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. The CWBS will not count towards page count limits. | |
| 31 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 10 | Section L, Volume I: Factor 1 - Technical Approach | Are resumes included in Volume I page count? Can they be included as appendices that do not count against page count? The Government is allowing Offerors to propose additional personnel. For a complex program, if multiple positions are included and since resumes may be 2 to 3 pages or longer, resumes will take up several pages. | Recommend page count clarification. Recommend resumes be an attachment or appendix outside page count. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. Resumes will not count towards volume page count limits, but each resume will be subject to a separate page count limit. | |
| 32 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, Volume III, Management | The Management Volume has 12 different elements to be addressed with several details requested. Yet the page limit for this volume is only 20 pages. It may not be practical to respond with the level of detail needed for Government evaluation. | Recommend revising the page limit for Volume III. | The formal solicitation will provide updated page count limits. | |
| 33 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, Subcontractor Management / Small Business Subcontracting Plan | Volume III requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This seems to be duplicative of instructions on page 6, Volume I. Can the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be excluded from page count? | Please remove duplicate requirements for Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 34 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 3 | Section L, Past Performance | Past Performance volume specifies 5 Pages Plus 2 Pages for Each Self-Assessment? What is to be contained in the 5 pages? 5 pages for description of past performance may not be adequate. Are there additional instructions for what is to be contained in the Self-Assessment? Is there a limit to the number of past performance citations? Pg. 15 past performance instructions do not provide additional detail consistent with expectations on pg. 3. | Clarify number of past performance citations, pages count for each, and template. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 35 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 18 | Section L, ESLOC | Please provide additional specification of what systems and variants are to be covered as part of the initial software build plan. As written, it is not clear how a software build plan is to be developed without deep incumbent knowledge of current systems and status of software development activities. Is there a list of software requirements and corresponding schedule? | |||
| a. An initial software build plan showing anticipated builds and software reviews and initial recommendations for build contents. | Clarification on basis for software build plan. | Sections B and C of the draft solicitation, along with the provided GFI and the milestone chart, should describe the required development in sufficient detail to develop a software build plan. The Government will also furnish additional documentation in the Bidder's Library that accompanies the final solicitation. | ||||||
| 36 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 19 | Section L, Volume V | The Price Proposal includes a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which seems duplicative of earlier volumes. | Clarify and remove duplication. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 37 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 3 | Section L, Proposal Format | Can a contractor deliver a classified appendix as part of the proposal response? Does this count a part of the Vol I page count | Recommend adding provision for classified appendix. | The formal solicitation will provide for submission of a classified annex. Unless the classified material falls under an exception outlined in the solicitation, classified annex content will count towards the page limits of the volume that the content supports. | |
| 38 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 7 | Section L, Vol I, Factor 1, Tech approach | Section L states "Attachment J-XX is a complete list of all GFP and GFI the Government intends to provide under this contract". | Government provide this attachment identifying GFP and GFI. Please identify if there is a need for the contractor to store and manage classified GFP. Please identify the space requirements for classified GFP. | The formal solicitation will include GFP and GFI lists as attachments. The Government will provide classification information with the formal solicitation, including an updated DD Form 254. | |
| 39 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | N/A | NA | The CEP XML formatted Site Configuration Database File (SCDB) for all sites and ships is not in the bidder's library. | Provide the CEP XML formatted SCDB for all sites and ships. | The Bidder's Library that supports the formal solicitation will include all relevant technical data necessary to develop a proposal. | |
| 40 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 66 | Section C, 2.3 Military Standards | Will the Government require strict application of MIL-STD-881C for producing the CWBS? If so, recommend that the Government provide additional guidance on which 881C appendix should be used and how the CEC Section C should be mapped in the CWBS. For example, Section C 3.2.1, Advanced Studies, requires “trade studies, design studies, technical feasibility evaluations, analysis, and documentation as directed by TI”. These are not easily associated with WBS elements defined by MIL-STD-881C (for example, Appendix B, Electronic systems). Similarly, Section C also includes Capability Enhancement/Hardware Technology Refresh (Section C 3.2.2), and maintenance of facilities other than development environment, such as the external RF Range and Compact Antenna Range (Section 3.3.2). These sections are also not easily mapped to the 881C WBS. Recommend additional guidance. | Clarify that MIL-STD-881 is provided as non-binding guidance only. Recommend government provide standard WBS for better evaluation of the proposals and improved contract execution. | The Government willl provide a standard WBS in the form of the CSDR plan. The CSDR plan provides the required reporting format. | |
| 41 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Jan-61 | Section B | The current CLIN structure and Section C is very complex and it is not conducive to formulating a CWBS that can easily conform to MIL-STD-881C. Without additional guidance, current requirements will lead to a very cumbersome and difficult to follow structure that may not be helpful to either the Government or the contractor for execution and EVM purposes. Recommend additional guidance. | Remove requirement to follow MIL-STD-881; Recommend government provide standard WBS for better evaluation of the proposals and improved contract execution. | The Government has provided a standard WBS in the form of the CSDR plan. The CSDR plan provides the required reporting format. | |
| 42 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | Bidder’s Library provides information on ACB 20 for future AEGIS baselines; there is no analogous information for current SSDS and AEGIS baselines, i.e., where are current issues and risks; there is no SSDS schedule provided…. | Please provide exit criteria for ACB 16, and entrance and exit criteria for ACB 20. Please provide current and future AEGIS and SSDS schedules. | The Bidder's Library that supports the formal solicitation will include all relevant technical data necessary to develop a proposal. | |
| 43 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | The current bidder's library does not provide the software version description detailing release numbers for each platform and CSCI versions in each software release supported under this contract (Zumwalt, FMS, USMC, E-2D, etc.) | Please provide the software version description with release numbers and CSCI versions. | The requested information will be included in the Bidder's Library that accompanies the formal solicitation. | |
| 44 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | Bidder’s Library still does not contain CEC Facilities Requirements Document that was promised in November 2017. | Please provide the document | The facilities requirements will be provided as an attachment to the solicitation. | |
| 45 | 3/6/18 | Bidder's Library | NA | NA | Please provide updated bidders library with Industry Day slides as soon as possible. | Please provide updated bidders library with Industry Day slides as soon as possible. | The presentation from the Industry Day has been provided to eligible participants (validated DD Form 254 and signed TOUA). | |
| 46 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 4 | Section L, Proposal Format | Section states "Index pages and tabs are required…" Are these included in the page count? The next paragraph details the items excluded from page count, but the index pages and tabs aren't listed. | Update Section L to exclude index pages and tab from the page count. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 47 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 4 | Section L, Binding and Labelling | Text state "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CONTRACT COST AND PRICING DATA BE INCLUDED IN VOLUMES I THROUGH V. In the event that cost and pricing data are included in Volumes I through V, that data will be excluded from the evaluation." However under Proposal Format, Volume V is the Price Proposal. Also, Page 6 states that the SF33 and Model Contract are to be included in Volume I Technical Proposal. This direction conflicts with the prohibition of including cost and pricing data in that volume. | Correct this section to state "Volumes I through IV". Also move the SF33, the Model Contract and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to Volume V since they will all contain pricing data. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. The Government intends to limit cost or price information to the Price Proposal Volume only. | |
| 48 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 4 | Section L, Electronic Data Format | Text states "All text shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format." and "All Adobe Acrobat files shall be word-searchable." This won't be possible since some of the required source documents (i.e. Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations, vendor quotes, etc.) are only available in picture format or unsearchable PDF. | Recommend changing the requirement to read "Microsoft Word readable format" and "Adobe readable format". | The Government recommends using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to make PDFs searchable. | |
| 49 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, VOLUME III: Factor 3 - Management Approach | Text requires us to include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in this volume. That plan will include pricing data, which is prohibited in this volume. | Recommend moving the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to Volume V. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. The Government intends to limit cost or price information to the Price Proposal Volume only. | |
| 50 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, | |||||
| Paragraph 3.1.1.3.1 | It is unclear what the roles and responsibilities are for each agency listed in paragraph two of 3.1.1.3.1. | Recommend the Government define the roles and responsibilities of each organization listed. | The requested information is contained in the SEP, which is available in the Bidder's Library. | |||||
| 51 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, Paragraphs 3.1.8.15.1, 3.1.8.16.1, 3.3.5 | Section C, paragraph 3.1.8.15.1 references CDRL A033 as being a requirement for Completion Tasks 0001-0008, 1002-1006, 2002-2006, 3002-3006, 4002-4006. Paragraph 3.1.8.16.1 references CDRL A033 as being a requirement for LOE tasks 0009-0040, 1009-10040, 2009-2040, 3009-3040, 4009-4040, for Government driven changes. And, Section C, paragraph 3.3.5 requires the Offeror to provide an annual TDP delivery CDRL A033 for CLINs 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005. In order to discretely estimate the scope of this last effort, the Offerors will need to have explicit details of the changes that are planned to occur to the existing equipment baselines in each of those periods of performance, what new baselines to account for in the estimates, and the understanding as to the difference between the TDP's required on Completion vice the TDP's required on LOE CLINs. The SOW also does not include any defined Entrance and Exit Criteria for the annual TDP delivery CLINs. | Recommend the Government provide the details of changes that are planned to occur to the existing baselines in each FY along with the entrance and exit criteria for the Bidders to base their completion CLINs 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 & 4005 estimates and clarify the TDP scope that will be required on the LOE CLINs so that the Completion estimates are appropriately sized. | The formal solicitation will change the TDP update and delivery efforts from a completion task to an LOE task. | ||
| 52 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, Paragraphs 3.1.8.15.1, 3.1.8.16.1, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7. | Section C, paragraph 3.1.8.15.1 references CDRL A033 as being a requirement for Completion Tasks 0001-0008, 1002-1006, 2002-2006, 3002-3006, 4002-4006. There is a requirement to update the TDP on CLIN 0007 (paragraph 3.3.7.1.2) for updates pertaining to the LAN Interface Upgrade and CLIN 0008 (paragraph 3.3.7.2.2) for updates pertaining to NTDS Elimination, which will overlap in time with the CLIN 0005 annual options and inflate the total evaluated price for the duplicative scope. Does the Government intend to provide additional clarifying information for CLINs 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005, so that they can be discretely estimated separate from CLINs 0007 and 0008? | Recommend the Government provide the details of changes that are planned to occur to the existing baselines in each FY with the entrance and exit criteria for the Bidders to base their completion estimates on CLINS 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005. | The formal solicitation will change certain completion tasks to LOE tasks, which should resolve the issues noted. | ||
| 53 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, Paragraphs 3.1.8.15.1, 3.3.1 | Section C, paragraph 3.1.8.15.1 references CDRL A033 as being a requirement for Completion Tasks 0001-0008, 1002-1006, 2002-2006, 3002-3006, 4002-4006. CDRL A033 is not listed under Paragraph 3.3.1, CEC Capabilities for Integration with ACB 20 (CLIN 0001), Paragraph 3.3.2 CEC Facility Management (CLIN 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002), Paragraph 3.3.3, CEC Maintenance Build (CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003 and 4003), Paragraph 3.3.4 Obsolescence Monitoring (CLINs 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004) or Paragraph 3.3.6 Technician Control Display / Human Machine Interface Master Disk and Research (CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3003, and 4006). | Recommend the Government provide the correct CLIN/CDRL references in the final RFP. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements and update the references. | ||
| 54 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section L, | |||||
| Pages 4, 6, 15 | According to page 6, each Offeror is required to submit the complete SF 33/Model Contract in Volume I, Technical Approach. Volume I, Technical Approach has a page count limitation of 100 pages and the summation of draft Sections B, C & F exceed that limit. |
The Model Contract also contains price information, however per paragraph 4, "under no circumstances shall contract cost and pricing data be included in Volumes I-V." However the Price Proposal is Volume V.
According to page 15, Volume V, Price Proposal has a requirement to submit an SF33 with blocks 12-18 completed, Section B, and a completed Section K. Would the Government consider moving the requirement to submit a Completed SF33/Model Contract from Volume I to Section 1 – Cost Data Tables of Volume V, in place of the current Volume 5 requirement?
| Recommend that the Government moves the requirement to submit a Completed SF33/Model Contract to Volume V, Section 1 – Cost Data Tables, in place of the current Volume 5 requirement | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |||||||
| 55 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, | |||||
| Paragraph 3.3.1 | Given uncertainty of scope allocations between Aegis ACB20 POR effort and the scope of the CEC DA/ES solicitation, what are the deliverables of each contract, and delivery schedule to support transition to a new Design Agent? | Provide set of GFI and GFCP to be delivered by Current Contract to new Contract. | Offerors should use the schedule provided and the Bidder's Library. Additional information and product cards will be provided in the Bidder's Library with the formal solicitation. | |||||
| 56 | 3/6/18 | Industry Day | Industry Day | How does this RFP relate to potential requirements and capabilities that are planned for the CEC Next efforts? What are the Navy’s intentions with respect to contracting for the CEC Block 2 CDD requirements – tasks under this contract or a new DA/ES competition? | Please clarify if CEC Next work is included in this RFP. | The scope of this solicitation does not include "CEC Next" efforts. | ||
| 57 | 3/6/18 | Industry Day | Industry Day | At Industry Day, it was stated to try to avoid changes to the CEC kernel. | Please clarify intent of this statement. | The Government is uncertain of the context in which the referenced statement was made. The formal solicitation and any amendments thereto are the only documents that describe the Government's requirements. | ||
| 58 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, | |||||
| Paragraph 3.1.2.1 | Can you describe more completely the meaning of “alternative system concepts”? | Provide clarification of "alternative system concepts." | Each item listed in the referenced paragraph is an attempt to highlight things that could be done in standard Systems Engineering practice. Alternative System Concepts are something identified as a part of an ASR (type of a SETR). | |||||
| 59 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | Section C, | |||||
| Paragraph 3.2.3.2 | Section C, Paragraph 3.2.3.2 states that the contractor shall procure parts and deliver stand-alone hardware to support Land Based Test Sites, contractor sites, or other development sites or labs. The current contract structure does not include a material procurement CLIN. Will a material procurement CLIN be included as part of the final RFP? | Provide updated Section B to include a material CLIN in support of LOE CLINs. | The formal solicitation will include a CLIN structure that supports all Section C requirements. | |||||
| 60 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 2 | Section L, Submission of Questions and Comments, second paragraph | First sentence in second paragraph states: "Offers shall submit comments, questions or inquiries to any Government representative other than the PCO and CS identified above." Offeror believes sentence should state 'Offerors shall not submit comments . . ." | Revise to the following: | ||
| "Offerors shall not submit comments, questions or inquiries to any Government representative other than the PCO and CS identified above." | The Government will correct the discrepancy in the formal solicitation. | |||||||
| 61 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 3 and 4 | Section L, Proposal Format - Page 3 - Page count table; Page 4, Second paragraph | Page 3 states the Executive Summary has a 5 page limit. On page 4, first sentence in second paragraph states: "Exclusions to page count limitation include: cover letter; title pages; table of contents; executive summary; glossary; . . . ". | Revise the Page Limitation table on page 3 or, on page 4, remove Executive Summary from the list of items with no page limitations. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 62 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 4 | Section L, Electronic Data Format | The direction states that "All text shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format." Most volumes will be comprised of text. However, submitting the proposal volume text in Microsoft Word format rather than word-searchable pdf lends itself to possible formatting issues when opening proposal volumes in MS Word. | Recommend that proposal content be submitted in word-searchable pdf format, recognizing that some Price Volume tables and Management Volume Schedule information could be submitted in their native Excel and Project formats. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 63 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 6 and 7 | Section L, SF 33/Model Contract | The first paragraph in this section states the Solicitation Set must be included in Volume I. Volume I is the Technical Volume which is page limited and cannot contain any pricing information. | Recommend the Solicitation Set / Model Contract be submitted in its own separate Contracts Documentation volume that would have: |
- Standard Form 33
- Signed DD 254
- Section K
- Attachment J-xx items not already included in other volumes
| - Section B pricing would not need to be incorporated as it is already included in the Pricing Volume | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |||||||
| 64 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 15 | Section L, Past Performance | The Past Performance discussion does not mention a minimum or maximum number of assessments an Offeror shall submit. | |||
| Recommend requiring submittal of 3 past performance assessments. | The formal solicitation will require that the Offeror to provide narrative information regarding its own past performance and that of certain proposed subcontractors. The formal solicitation will not require the submission of separate assessment questionnaires. | |||||||
| 65 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 3, 6 and 7 | Section L, Volume I | The references to the first volume and to Volume I are confusing. Under Proposal Format (page 5), the first volume's title is Executive Summary, but it does not have a volume number. Here, the second volume is Volume I - Technical Proposal. On page 6 under SF33/Model Contract, the section refers to Volume I, but makes more sense if this is really the unnumbered first volume, the Exec Sum volume. | Recommend giving the Executive Summary volume a number (and renumbering other volumes as needed) to provide clear references. Also suggest that the Executive Summary volume have its own clearly identified Section L paragraph with directions (e.g.. VOLUME ?: Executive Summary) as do each of the subsequent volumes. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 66 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 11 | Section L, Data Rights | In the second paragraph, the Government states "The Data Rights offered (…) shall be provided as attachments to Volume #.... Is it the Governments intent to include all contract related attachments in the first volume (Executive Summary) requiring cross referencing between volumes from the Data Rights narrative to relevant 7017 list, 7028 list, etc., rather than having those lists as attachments to the Data Rights volume? | Recommend maintaining the 7017, 7028 and Supplemental Information lists as attachments to the Data Rights volume so that this related information is contained in the same binder. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 67 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13-15 | Section L, Management Approach | The Management Approach volume instructs bidders to address 12 elements, but limits this narrative to 20 pages. A 20 page limits restricts offerors to only addressing the required topics superficially. A likely result will be that all offerors responses will be the same without detail that the Navy can use to distinguish one offeror's approach from another. | Recommend Increasing the page limit to 50 pages to cover requested elements as currently described in draft Section L | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 68 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13 | Section L, IMS | Contract-wide IMS calls for offerors to provide an IMS. Does the Navy desire a printed hard copy of the requested IMS or electronic only. A hard copy IMS adds a lot of pages with minimal benefit to readers. | Recommend instructions that the IMS itself be provided only as an electronic file in Microsoft Project format. | The formal solicitation will require electronic-only submission of the IMS. The IMS is excempt from the page count limitations. | |
| 69 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 6, 13 and 19 | Section L, Small Business | Page 6 under RFP Attachment J-Other Exhibits and Attachments instructs to include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume I (Executive Summary or Technical?). Page 13 under Management Approach element > Subcontractor Management/Small Business asks for a description and again asks for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (without identifying whether the plan should be duplicated as attachment to the Management Volume or reference the Vol I attachment). Page 19 at the end of Price Proposal under Small Business Subcontracting Plan again instructs offerors to submit a plan (without identifying whether the plan should be duplicated as attachment to the Price Proposal Volume or reference the Vol I attachment). | Recommend clarifying where you want (a) any narrative description regarding small business (suggest that the Management Approach volume is most appropriate); and (b) the actual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (suggest indicating it only be included once either as attachment to the Management Approach volume or with other contract related attachments in the Executive Summary volume). | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 70 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 14 | Section L, Quality Assurance | The Quality Assurance element instructs offerors to provide a draft QAPP, but does not specify where. | Recommend clarifying that the Draft QAPP be included as an attachment (not subject to page count limitations) to the Management Approach volume. | The formal solicitation will remove the requirement to provide a draft QAPP for evaluation purposes. QAPP requirements will be addressed in Section C. | |
| 71 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13-15 | Section L, Management Approach | The Management Approach volume requests offerors to describe or include several plans (staffing plan, SB Subcontracting Plan, QAPP, communication plan) however does not mention a Program Management Plan, a key document that ties many of these elements together. | Recommend requiring offeror's to submit a draft PMP as an attachment (not subject to page count limitations) to the Management Approach volume. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 72 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 14 | Section L, Risk | The Management Approach volume asks offeror's to discuss risk under different elements, yet does not ask offerors to describe a Risk and Opportunity Management Plan or provide a draft ROMP. | Recommend requiring offeror's to submit a draft ROMP as an attachment (not subject to page count limitations) to the Management Approach volume. | The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |
| 73 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 3 | Section L, Proposal Format | Draft Section L does not provide any detail about classified responses. | Please add instructions on how the Navy wishes any classified responses to be presented in the proposal format. Recommend that classified material be gathered in a classified annex bound as a separate volume and cross-referenced to and from the relevant sections in the unclassified technical (or other) volume. If the Navy adopts this suggestion, please also provide instructions about how the Navy wants offerors to count pages in the unclassified versus classified sections with respect to page limitations. | The formal solicitation will provide for submission of a classified annex. Unless the classified material falls under an exception outlined in the solicitation, classified annex content will count towards the page limits of the volume that the content supports. | |
| 74 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 4 | Section L, Proposal Format | Draft Section L currently requires that "all pages shall be consecutively numbered within each volume." For volumes with no page count limitations (Price Proposal), will the Navy accept page numbering by individual section rather than consecutively for the entire volume? | This results in the need for less page renumbering and thus less disruption when content changes such as during discussions if evaluation notices are issued or when a Final Proposal Revision is produced if a version is required that shows changed pages. | The Government will consider implementing this recommendation for the formal solicitation. | |
| 75 | 3/6/18 | Industry Day | N/A | Section M | It was stated at the Industry Day briefing the Management Approach factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Management of the CEC Program is significantly complex given the number of platforms that must be integrated into a single air picture, involving not only cross platform interfaces but also multiple customer coordination. As such, the Management factor should receive close review to ensure Offeror has capability to coordinate and manage technical, schedule, and cost aspects of the program successfully. | Recommend the evaluation criteria for the Management Approach factor be an adjectival rating. | The Government will take the recommendation under advisement. However, Management Approach will likely remain an acceptable/unacceptable evaluation factor in the formal solicitation. | |
| 76 | 3/6/18 | Industry Day | N/A | Section M | It was stated at the Industry Day briefing the Past Performance factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Past Performance is an indicator of an Offeror's capability to execute a dynamic program such as CEC. The CEC Program requires coordination of various Government program offices, and technical, management, and cost requirements. Completing an assessment of an Offeror's past performance on programs of similar complexity provides insight into the Offeror's ability to successfully complete the solicitation's requirements. Assessing the risk on an adjectival rating provides greater calibration of an Offeror's capabilities. | |||
| Recommend the evaluation criteria for the Past Performance factor be an adjectival rating. | The Government will take the recommendation under advisement. However, Past Performance will likely remain an acceptable/unacceptable evaluation factor in the formal solicitation. | |||||||
| 77 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 11 | Section L, Sample Problem | Recommend that more than one Sample Problem is required to ensure Offerors can clearly and sufficiently demonstrate capability as to how its technical solution integrates with all CEC network platforms, both current and future, to maintain a Single Integrated Air Picture. | Include additional Sample Problems in Section L. | The formal soliciation will require Offerors to respond to multiple sample problems. | |
| 78 | 3/6/18 | Draft RFP | 13-15 | Section L, Management Approach | Several elements (Program Organization, Organizational Structure, and Interfacing with Government and Other Stakeholders) instruct offerors to describe "interactions". Describing these closely related organizations, interfaces and interactions under numerous elements could potentially make an offeror's response come across as disjointed or require unnecessary repetition of information where page limits indicate a concise response is desired. | Suggest examining the interactions offerors are asked to describe under each of these closely related elements. Revise Section L to consolidate into a single paragraph what the Navy desires offerors to write about with respect to interactions. Identify a single place to respond rather than distributed across multiple elements. Suggest that the "Interfacing with Government and Other Stakeholders" element is a logical place for this consolidated topic. |
The resulting responses should make it easier for the Navy to understand each offeror's approach to these interactions.
| The formal solicitation will clarify these requirements. | |||||||
| 79 | 3/6/18 | Government Responses to Questions and Comments from Industry; dated December 13, 2017 | Item No. 41 | Section B, C | The Government's December 13, 2017 response to Item No. 41 welcomes Industry to provide feedback to support completion tasking. | In accordance with the Pre-Solicitation Notice stating RFP scope would encompass E2-D Advanced Hawkeye, the Offeror recommends E2-D Advanced Hawkeye completion-type effort be added to Sections B and C. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.