Attachment_5_Bidders_Questions_Form_8.30_round_two_51-64.pdf

Attachment 5: RFP QUESTION SUBMITTAL

Final Solicitation N00024-18-R-6407

QUESTION

NO.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

RFP Attachment

#1, SOW,

Appendix B, Section B.1 Scope

Page B-1

Tactical Control

Development, Integration, Testing and

Delivery

(COMPLETIO

N)

Table B1 lists (V)11 as an applicable variant for

TI20 APB19. GFI Item 35 (IMP Rev Q.1) lists

(V)CLB [same as (V)11] as a scheduled variant for

TI20 APB21. Please correct Table B1 or provide updated IMP scheduling guidance for (V)11.

Table B1 is correct. This change was made after IMP Q.1 was released, but it was not updated. Assume the same timeline for required dates for CLB as is listed in IMP

Q.1. The update will be made at contract award.

Page C-1, AN/BYG-1

COMBAT AND

WEAPON

CONTROL

SUBSYSTEM

INTEGRATION

FOR USN AND

RAN SHARED

RFP

Attachment #1, SOW, Appendix C, Section C.1

Scope

Table C1 lists (V)11 as an applicable variant for

TI20 APB19. GFI Item 35 (IMP Rev Q.1) lists

(V)CLB [same as (V)11] as a scheduled variant for

TI20 APB21. Please correct Table C1 or provide updated IMP scheduling guidance for (V)11.

Table B1 is correct. This change was made after IMP Q.1 was released, but it was not updated. Assume the same timeline for required dates for CLB as is listed in IMP

Q.1. The update will be made at contract award.

SOW Appendix E, RAN Unique

Development

Page E-2

E.4.1 Test

Conduct.

The 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence states: “The

Contractor should document and conduct TRR’s as scheduled in the PPC to ensure the system SW is configuration managed, test documents and RFVs are approved and test entrance requirements are satisfied prior to entering formal test events, including regression testing.”

RFVs are not approved until after formal test and are instead entrance criteria for SDVR per

GFI Item 18 AN/BYG-1 SEP (Table 13).

Recommend the government move the SOW

Appendix E reference to RFVs to a paragraph following SDCT at the bottom of page E-2.

The words “RFVs are approved” will be replaced with

“RFVs are identified” in amendment 0002.

BYG-1 TI-20

APB-21 IMP

GFI Item 35

PMS425 IMP

Rev Q.1

Rows 97 & 98 list “(V)1 Preliminary MIPs/MRCs”

& “(V)1 Final IETM” tasks respectively. This appears to be a typographical error and should reference (V)9 instead of (V)1.

Should the offerer assume a (V)9 baseline vice (V)1 for these two line items?

Yes, the offerors should assume lines 97 & 98 in IMP Rev

Q.1 reference (V)9 instead of (V)1. Update will be made at award.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Pages 180 - 182

Section B Pricing

(Prime Offerors

Only)

RFP, Section

4.2.1

This is an overarching question based on confusion that exists as to how the government would like the cost/price volume organized given the redundancy of requirements in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and

4.2.4. Section 4.2.1 (Section B Pricing) appears to

have a requirement to provide a completed Section

B, overarching cost volume guidance, and specific compliance instructions which are also provided in

Sections 4.2.2 (Summary Cost Data), 4.2.3

(Other Information Required), and 4.2.4 (Supporting

Cost Data for Cost Reimbursable and Cost

Only CLINs. However, Section 4.2.1 has requirements that are not in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or

4.2.4 to include: (1) in the second paragraph a requirement to provide proposed man-hours for each Completion and LOE CLIN and identification of any uncompensated effort, and

(2) Section 2.1.1.16 (Cost Summary for Government

Total Evaluated Cost/Price) on page 182.

Additionally, the inclusion of the sections 2.1

(Summary Cost Data) through 2.1.2 (Other

Information) in Section 4.2.1 gives the impression that the government desires this information in Section 4.2.1 and in addition to where they are specified as a requirement in sections 4.2.2,

4.2.3 and 4.2.4. (continued on next page)

To streamline compliance, recommend:

(1) Move the current Section 4.2.1 (Section B

Pricing) second paragraph to be the third paragraph in Section 4.2.2 (Summary Cost Data), preceding section 4.2.2.1

(2) Move Section 4.2.1 third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth paragraphs into Section 4.2

(Factor (5): Volume II – Cost/Price Proposal) section. This will locate them consistent with where overarching guidance would be provided.

(3) Move Section 2.1.1.16 (Cost Summary for

Government Total Evaluated Price) to Section

4.2.2 (Summary Cost Data) as new sub-section

The Government will not change the solicitation.

4.2.4.1 – WORK WEEK ASSUMPTIONS states that hours in section B that are proposed, should include compensated and uncompensated hours. However, please note that justification for the ‘uncompensated” hours should be included per section 4.2.4.1. Each cost workbook (Attach 8) tab should be used to fulfill the requirements 2.1.1.1 – 2.1.1.15.

2.1.1.16 can be developed by simply adding the Overview tabs from Part A and Part B together. This should be your total cost estimate.

Section 4.2.1 provides a listing of how the items should be presented in the returned cost proposal volume. Sections

4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 provide specifics for what should be included in 4.2.1.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

4.2.2.8

(4) Delete Sections 2.1 and 2.2 on pages 181 and

182 as they are repetitive to the requirements specified in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 based on the current RFP and the proposed changes above.

RFP Pages 35-36

Note J; SOW Page

F-1;

Ex A CDRL

Package Page 22

RFP Section B, Note J, CLIN

0008 (TCS Re-

Architecture);

RFP

Attachment 1, SOW, Appendix

F; Ex_A_-

_CDRL_Packag e_16_March_18

CLIN 0008 incremental funding table in Section B, Note J, identifies three increments for the Re-

Architecture. The first increment task description reads “Architecture Design Description Kickoff and delivery of recommended TI20/APB21 Architecture

Updates (CDRL A022)”.

This description of A022 is significantly different from the wording in the SOW Appendix F1 scope statement, in which the requirement states

“The Contractor shall provide an evaluation of the TI-18/APB-19 TCS architected baseline to support a rearchitecture / redesign of the TI-20

APB-21 baseline. [CDRL A022].”

CDRL A022 description in the Ex A CDRL Package is for a technical report.

Would the government clarify what CDRL A022 is to address and how it differs from the SWAD

[CDRL A046] identified in SOW Appendix F2?

The description in SOW Appendix F is correct for A022 and Note J has been updated to reflect the Appendix F language in amendment 0002. A022 is a description of the current architecture and what needs to be changed, the

SWAD [A046] is a description of the new architecture.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

RFP Section B, Note J, pg 36;

SOW

Appendix F1 & F2 pages F-1 to F-2;

Ex A CDRLs

A003, A022 and

A046

RFP Section B, Note J, CLIN

0008 (TCS Re-

Architecture);

RFP

Attachment 1, SOW, Appendix

F; Ex_A_-

_CDRL_Packag e_16_March_18

SOW Appendix F2 states “Upon approval of the

Contractor’s PPC [CDRL A003], which includes the TCS Architecture execution plan, the Contractor shall develop and deliver a TCS Software Architecture Description (SWAD) document for describing the new TCS

Architecture. [CDRL A046]”. However, Ex A-

CDRL Package specifies a PPC [CDRL A003] delivery date of 60 DAC and a SWAD [CDRL

A046] delivery date of 90 DAC. Given that the government will need time to review and approve the

PPC, the 90 DAC delivery date will not provide sufficient time to update the SWAD.

In addition, the TI18 APB19 architectural analysis

[CDRL A022] should be completed prior to updating the SWAD.

Recommend changing SOW F2 to state: “Following approval of the Contractor’s PPC [CDRL

A003] which includes the TCS Architecture execution plan, and submission of the TI18 APB19

Architectural Analysis [CDRL A022], the Contractor shall deliver a TCS Software Architecture

Description (SWAD) document for describing the new TCS Architecture [CDRL A046].”

This wording would allow the Contractor to start development of the SWAD prior to formal government approval of the PPC, if desired.

The Government has changed the paragraph in amendment 0002 to allow the contractor not to wait for approval of the PPC before starting the SWAD.

Attachment 8 and

RFP Section 4.2.2

Summary Cost

Data

Cost summaries shall be provided in Attachment 8 by Government fiscal year. However Attachment 8

Part A supporting Cost Data Workbook (LOE-ODC) references calendar year (CY) and Government fiscal year (GFY) within the same workbook across different tabs. Attachment 8 Part B Supporting Cost

Data Workbook (COMPLETION) only references calendar year. Request the Government update or provide clarifying direction for Attachment 8

Workbooks and RFP Section 4.2.2 to confirm the

An update to Attachment 8 Part A to state CY has been made. The Government has updated section 4.2.2 to remove Government FY and update it to CY in amendment 0001.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

reporting year to be used by Offerors. Also, if GFY is desired please state for RAN tables whether this is

U.S. GFY or Australian GFY.

171 of the A0001 conformed RFP, Hard Copy

Proposals

RFP Section

L2.1

PROPOSAL

FORMAT

AND

DELIVERY

INFORMATIO

N

Amendment 0001 Answer to Bidders Questions stated that the number of foldouts was revised to allow 10 foldouts. The paragraph titled Hard Copy

Proposals still shows a limit of six. Request the

Government revise Amendment 0001 to state 10 foldouts as the limit.

The Government has updated the Section L which should have been done in amendment 0001 to reflect the allowance of 10 foldouts.

Page 5, Question

Amendment

001 Answers to

Bidders

Questions

(8/16)

Amendment 001 Answer to Bidders Questions stated it is the Government’s intent that Completion ODC costs will be proposed as part of the Completion

CLINs (inclusive of both hours and ODCs). Does this mean that fee will be applied to both labor and

ODCs costs for Completion CLINs?

No, all ODCs are non-fee-bearing.

Amendment 001

Evaluation for

Orders- CLINs

0005 (Cost Plus

Fixed Fee) and

0007 (Firm Fixed

Price)

RFP

Amendment

001 Sections

M2.5.1.8,

2.5.1.9 (Steps

18 & 19)

Section 2.5.1.8 states that the GTEC/P will include the NTE amount plus the proposed fee percentages.

For Firm Fixed Price (FFP) orders, fee is normally included in the price. For Section 2.5.1.9, should

Step 18 Target Cost for FFP be the NTE amount minus the fee such that the total FFP price (cost plus fee) does not exceed the NTE ceiling or should the

FFP NTE ceiling be used as Target Cost, in which case cost plus fee will exceed the NTE ceiling?

The CPFF/ FFP Order CLINs NTE ceiling will be used as total proposed value, to include fee/ profit. The

Government has made the change in amendment 0002 to show the NTE amount shall not be exceeded.

B1.1 Completion

Criteria, Page B-1 and C1.1

Completion

Criteria, Page C-1

SOW

Amendment

001 Appendices

B and C

Amendment 001 Answers to Bidders Questions

(8/16) question #35 and subsequent update to RFP

Section E clarified that the completion criteria for the

TCS Development/Integration/Delivery and BYG-1

Integration Completion CLINs (0101/0102 thru

0501/0502) was the DRR of the first baseline variant.

Request the Government update the Amendment 001

SOW Appendices B and C to reflect that revision

The Government has updated Appendix B1.1 and C1.1in amendment 0002.

(a) Page 171 of 206

(Amendment 1

Conformed), Hard

Section L, Part

2.0

Based upon the text in Section L Part 2.0, besides foldouts, it appears that all font sizes are to be no smaller than 12 point Times New Roman font.

The Government has updated Section L, to allow only the

Attachments type size to be no smaller than 8 point font.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Copy Proposals

(b) Attachment 7

Staffing Matrix

However, in Attachment 7 that was provided with the RFP, which is not a foldout, the font is smaller than 12 point Times New Roman (and smaller than 8 point font when filled out due to automatically resizing the font), which seems to contradict this section of the RFP. Also, in past NAVSEA RFP’s, all tables, figures and diagrams within the proposal were allowed to be no smaller than 8 point Times

New Roman Font.

Please clarify as soon as possible whether all tables, figures and diagrams within the proposal (excluding foldouts) may be no smaller than 8 point Times New

Roman Font size, as this affects proposal production.

on page 167 of the

RFP for clause

“HQ L-2-0013

SPECIAL

PROPOSAL

RECEIPT

REQUIREMENTS

(NAVSEA) (APR

2015)” it requires each RFP package include the name of the contracting officer and the contract specialist, their codes and phone numbers. In reviewing the RFP, there was a code provided for Pete Richmond (SEA

0261) but there was not a code provided for Patrick

Dooley. Can you please provide this?

Patrick Dooley

Contract Specialist

Code: SEA 02642D

Phone: 202-781-2332