Response_to_BQ_0001.pdf

Question # Document

Description Page # Section/ Paragraph Question/ Comment Proposed Action/ Change Government Response

1 RFP 26

Section C-1 / 1

3.3.3.2.1/1

The RFP states “The contractor is fully responsible and provided the design space to develop new or revised element, ceramic ring, and associated drawings, processes, and procedures to make compliant Array Nose

Assemblies (ANA) to the top level detail and performance specification requirements.” However, section 3.3.3.2.1 requires the contractor to submit all ECPs for government approval prior to implementation. This implies the government can disapprove the contractors design, potentially resulting in numerous, iterative redesign efforts.

Will the government modify section 3.3.3.2.1 to state

“Contractor ECPs related to design changes for Attachment 2

GFI in order to meet the Array Nose Assembly (ANA) performance specification (7109301) and the Transmitter performance specification (WS22038) do not require government approval and may be immediately implemented upon submission to the government.”?

The Government will not modify Section C-1, paragraph 3.3.3.2.1.

This section governs changes to the baseline (Attachment 1).

The ANA and Transmitter are performance based requirements.

The Government must approve design changes to ensure the proposed changes meet the performance requirements. New or revised drawings with regard to the Attachment 2 GFI will be subject to the SETRs outlined in the SEMP which will ultimately result in an ECP to the contract. Further, paragraphs 3.3.2.3.2 and

3.3.2.3.3 outline approval CDRLs required for the ceramic and transducer element.

2 RFP 58

Section C-3 / HQ C-2-0012 (f)

(1)

The RFP states “In the event the Contractor, on its own initiative, and without written request from the Contracting Officer, develops a change document that is later disapproved by the Government, the Contractor shall bear the cost of this effort.” This does not align with the SOW C-1 which requires the contractor to develop ECPs for Attachment 2 GFI in order to meet the Array Nose Assembly (ANA) performance specification (7109301) and the Transmitter performance specification (WS22038).

Will the government modify paragraph 1, section (f), Page 58 to state “Contractor costs for ECPs related to design changes for Attachment 2 GFI in order to meet the Array Nose

Assembly (ANA) performance specification (7109301) and the

Transmitter performance specification (WS22038) shall receive equitable adjustment regardless of whether or not the change document is later approved.”?

The Government will not modify clause HQ C-2-0012, Configuration Management. Section C-1, paragraph 3.3.3.2.1 governs changes to the baseline (Attachment 1). The ANA and

Transmitter are performance based requirements. The contractor bears the risks/costs of meeting the performance specifications. New or revised drawings with regard to the

Attachment 2 GFI will be subject to the SETRs outlined in the

SEMP which will ultimately result in an ECP to the contract.

Further, paragraphs 3.3.2.3.2 and 3.3.2.3.3 outline approval

CDRLs required for the ceramic and transducer element.

3 RFP 95 Section I / 52.209-4 (i)

The RFP states “The Government may waive the requirement for first article approval test where supplies identical or similar to those called for in the schedule have been previously furnished by the Offeror/Contractor and have been accepted by the Government. The Offeror/Contractor may request a waiver.” However, the associated FAR clauses for First Article

Waiver are not included in the RFP.

Will the government amend the RFP to add the First Article

Waiver Request Clauses HQ C-2-0062 WAIVER OF FIRST

ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990) and clause HQ

M-2-0011 WAIVER OF FIRST ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS

(CONTRACTOR TESTING)?

The Government has no intention of waiving first article requirements; therefore, the waiver of first article clause(s) will not be added.

4 RFP 150

Section L / HQ L02-0005

Notification of Potential

Organizational Conflicts of

Interest (NAVSEA) (JUN 1994)

Government fill-in on line 3 is blank. Will the government please provide the required fill-in? The RFP has been revised to reflect "PMS 404" in the fill-in.

5 RFP 191

Section M / 1. Basis for

Award, 3rd paragraph

RFP states "Offers that are unrealistic in terms of technical approach or are unrealistically low in price for CPFF CLINs, may indicate a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk associated with the contract requirements" and "The ability of the Offeror to perform all aspects of the anticipated contract from inception to completion will be considered as part of the overall “cost realism” evaluation for Cost and CPFF items and “price reasonableness” for FFP and FPI items".

Request the government clarify intent of first quotation: given that the CPFF CLINs are specified LOE Engineering Services, should "unrealistically low in price for CPFF CLINs" be changed to "unrealistically low in price for FFP and FPI CLINs"? Also, for the second quotation, request the government clarify whether price realism, in addition to price reasonableness, applies to the FFP and FPI items.

Price Realism will not be conducted for fixed price type CLINs.

The FPI and FFP CLINs will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

Cost realism will only be conducted for the COST type CLINs.

6 RFP 40

Section 3.3.2.1.6.4.1 FIRST

ARTICLE CONTRACTOR

TESTING

Section 3.3.2.1.6.4.1 States: "The Contractor shall perform all required first article testing on a minimum of one (1) TX and one (1) ANA to ensure that all performance requirements are met under CLIN 0001. The

Contractor shall perform HASS and all other required testing of the TDP including Qualification Testing and 100%

Acceptance Testing of the ANA specification, 7109301 Table 4.1-1, and Preproduction Testing and

Inspection Lot Testing of the Transmitter specification, WS22038 Figures 7 and 8. If test failures occur, repeat of any testing may be required at the discretion of the Government after corrective actions are implemented."

If the Contractor does not have the full facility capability to perform

Qualification Testing per the CIPS, will the government agree to provide facilities and personell under a Work for Private Parties Agreement and commit to the Qualification schedule proposed by the Contractor to meet the RFP Qualification schedule under the FPI POM CLIN of this proposal?

The Contractor may enter into WFPPAs to support this effort.

These WFPPA are completely separate from this contract and any delays due to the WFPPA will not be considered a "Government

Delay" for purposes of performance on this contract.

Description Page # Section/ Paragraph Question/ Comment Proposed Action/ Change Government Response

7 RFP 39

Section 3.3.2.1.6.1 Factory

Test Certification Test

Readiness Review

Section 3.3.2.1.6.1 states "The Factory Test Certification TRR will approve initiation of the certification effort for the factory test equipment

(FTE) and facility to perform the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) for the

FIR(s)." The RFP states, in section 3.3.6 FACTORY TEST EQUIPMENT (FTE), that the FTE come as GFP and are already certified. Why does the

Government require the FTE to be re-certified by the contractor?

This is a qualification process to prove that the government provided equipment, when installed and operating in the contractor's facility, will provide consistent and correct results.

There are facility factors (tanks, hydrophones, shaker tables, cables ,et. al.) that have to be accounted for and certified.

8 RFP 29

Section 2.4 DIMINISHING

MANUFACTURING SOURCES

AND MATERIAL SHORTAGES

(DMSMS) / OBSOLESCENCE

MANAGEMENT

Section 2.4 states "The Contractor shall be responsible for identification, resolution and implementation of all DMSMS/Obsolescence issues associated with production and delivery of hardware under this contract in accordance with this clause and the Statement of Work." Section 3.3.3.2.1 requires customer approval of ECPs.

Modify section 2.4 to state that the government is responsible for approval of changes to the configuration, including DMS, or alternatively convey CM approval to the Contractor.

The Government will not modify Section 2.4. The contractor is responsible for identification, resolution and implementation of all DMSMS/Obsolescence issues. The Government must approve all changes.

9 RFP 49

Section 3.3.6 FACTORY TEST

EQUIPMENT (FTE) / 1

Section 3.3.6 FTE states: “The Contractor will receive functional FTE test stations as GFE in accordance with Attachment 3. These test stations are

Government certified and may be used in conjunction with Contractor owned test equipment to validate the ANA and TX FAT requirements to their respective performance specifications with the submittal of a First Article

Test Report (CDRL A016).” If the FTE is certified and the FTE TDP is provided, what happens if the contractor needs to change the FTE to accommodate different interfaces? Does the FTE TDP require the government's ECP process to be followed or does the contractor have control over the FTE

TDP?

Changes to the FTE TDP require Government approval.

10 RFP 41

Section 3.3.2.1.7.3

PRODUCTION READINESS

REVIEW (PRR) EXIT CRITERIA /

Section 3.3.2.1.7.3 PRR Exit Criteria states: “Upon completion of PRR, all contractor updates to the TDPs and factory processes shall be incorporated into the baseline. Upon start of building production hardware, the baseline for all factory processes shall be considered established and the requirements of the Contractor’s QPP shall become effective. Upon First

Article and PRR Approval, the Contract’s Attachment 1, TDP, will be modified via a contract modification to include the completed drawing tree.” With potentially one month between PRR and delivery of the first lot (see RFP

Attachment 8), it does not seem feasible to obtain approval and incorporate all TDP updates into a contract modification in that timeframe. Will schedule and cost relief be provided if production is delayed due to government process?

Production will not be delayed for Government processing. The entrance criteria for the PRR require all these actions to be complete; the completion of PRR formally incorporates the technical updates.

11 Attachment 1 TDP Placeholder Request has been made for receipt – when will the TDP be released?

The TDP has been issued to all companies who requested the information and met the security requirements.

12 General Is there an incumbent on the Production of the MK 54 MOD 0 Array Kits? Provide name of incumbent There is no incumbent. The requirements from the previous solicitation have been modified.

13 General Has the incumbent delivered compliant Array Kits to the USN?

The Government does not release past performance information about individual contractors. However, there is no incumbent.

The requirements from the previous solicitation have been modified.

14 Attachment 2 Government Furnished

Information

Will NAVSEA provide a list of qualified material vendors for the existing Bill of Material?

Provide list of qualified vendors The Government does not have a qualified vendors list.

15 Solicitation General Unclear if this solicitation is a Build to Print or Build to Specification? Please Clarify

Attachment 1 identifies the items that are build to spec and which items are build to print. GFI provided in Attachment 2 is provided for information only.

16 Solicitation 26 Section C-1

Is the government stating that there are contradictions between “detail specifications” and “performance specifications”? If so can the government point out these known contradictions?

Please Clarify and point out the known contradictions.

There are no known contradictions at this time; the wording in the RFP has been updated for clarification. Performance

Specifications take precedence over the design specifications.

Description Page # Section/ Paragraph Question/ Comment Proposed Action/ Change Government Response

17 Solicitation 26 Section C-1

Can the contractor, understanding the requirement to meet the performance specification for the Array Kit, use its own internal proven manufacturing processes to manufacture, test and deliver the array kit?

Does the contractor have to get approval from NAVSEA, at any time during execution of the contract, to use its own internal and proven manufacturing processes to manufacture, test and deliver the array kits?

All requirements of this RFP must be met which include approval of multiple CDRLs and ECPs.

18 General

Does NAVSEA anticipate a steady level of production rate throughout the execution of the contract? For example does NAVSEA expect to order 250 units/ year for the life of the contract.

Annual funding may fluctuate through the regular budgeting process. Stepladder pricing is requested in Section B to account for variation in quantity.