Draft_Solicitation_Q&A_Release_4_(Public).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0002419R2300
About this file
Government responses to industry feedback concerning the draft solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
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
Q&A #1-12 (21 Mar 2019)
| # | Date | Source Document | Reference | Excerpt of Content | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 2.3.2 Page Count Exclusions, Page #230 | In addition, the following proposal pages are exempt from the page count limitations: |
| • Résumés | Instructions for Résumés do not appear in the Section L Requirements. Will the Government confirm that this listing in Section L is in error and that no Résumés are required to be submitted? | Section L does not require the submission of résumés. The reference to résumés will be removed from the final RFP. | |||||
| 2 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 2.7 Page Size and Format, Page #232 | Text within tables, diagrams, pictorial charts, or graphic material may use no smaller than 8-point font in Times New Roman or Arial typeface. | Can the Government please confirm that the term Arial typeface, as used here, comprises many styles: Regular, Italic, Medium, Medium Italic, Bold, Bold Italic, Black, Black Italic, Extra Bold, Extra Bold Italic, Light, Light Italic, Narrow, Narrow Italic, Narrow Bold, Narrow Bold Italic, Condensed, Light Condensed, Bold Condensed, and Extra Bold Condensed. | As used in the draft RFP, Arial typeface may include the examples cited. However, the referenced section of the final RFP will use the term "font" in place of "typeface." | |
| 3 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 2.7.3 Fold-Out Sheets, Page #232-233 | Foldouts for the entire proposal are limited to a total of 25 foldout sheets. Foldout sheets contained in the Price Proposal do not count towards the 25-sheet foldout limit. | Can the Government modify this Paragraph so that the Executive Summary and the IMS submissions (which are unlimited pages) are also not counted in the 25-sheet foldout limit? | Yes, the final RFP will exclude the Executive Summary and the IMS from the foldout page limit. | |
| 4 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 2.5.1 Binders, 2.7.2 Double-Sided Printing, and 2.7.3 Fold-Out Sheets Page #231, 232-233 | 2.5.1 - Each proposal section shall start on a new page; 2.7.2 - proposal material shall be presented on double-sided pages only; 2.7.3 Each non-blank side of a foldout page will count as two (2) pages for page count purposes. | Can the Government reword the RFP instructions to contain the following guidance: Pages excluded from the page count must contain only material pertinent to the page heading or be blank and marked “Intentionally Left Blank.” | The Government does not intend to count blank pages (whether marked as "intentionally left blank" or otherwise) towards the proposal page limits. | |
| 5 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 4.1.1.1 Design, 4.1.1.1.7 Intact and Damaged Stability, Page #235, 238 | 4.1.1.1 The Offeror shall provide the associated products in the specified areas to allow the Navy to evaluate how the proposed ship design meets or exceeds the requirements of this solicitation. Narrative discussion for each design area shall be included in the body of the Technical Volume. |
The Offeror shall provide the following associated products in the Design Appendix:
a) Intact and Damaged Static Stability Report with supporting analysis and native files provided in Ship Hull Characteristics Program (SHCP) format sufficient to validate the analysis in accordance with T9070-AF-DPC-010-079-1.
| Can the Government confirm that the supporting analysis requested in the Design Appendix with the Intact and Damaged Static Stability Report can contain "narrative" information to explain the analysis? This also applies in other requests for Design Appendix informaiton, e.g., 4.1.1.8 Auxiliary Systems and Equipment | The Intact and Damaged Stability Report required by Section L 4.1.1.1.7 and the products associated with Section L 4.1.1.1.8 may include supporting analysis in a narrative format to the extent that such embedded narrative is necessary to understand the content of the product. However, narrative descriptions of how the intact and damaged stability and auxiliary systems and equipment of the Offeror's design meet the requirements of the FFG(X) System Specification must still be provided in the body of the Technical Volume. | ||||
| 6 | 3/21/19 | Draft Attachment J-1 Contract Security Classification Specification DD254 | Block 13, Item 11(j), Page #4 | Item 11(j) Continued: CUI Correspondence transmitted internally on the contractor's unclassified networks or information systems, and externally, shall be protected per NIST SP-800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Non-federal Systems and Organizations | The Terms of Use Agreement for FFG(X) Material states that firms' shall ensure that any information system that processes, stores, or transmits FFG(X) bidder's library set materials complies with the requirements of FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems, and DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. |
To better align the Draft Attachment J-1 and the Terms of Use Agreement for FFG(X) Material, would the USN update the Draft Attachment J-1 DD254 form to replace the reference to NIST SP-800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Non-federal Systems and Organizations with FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems, and DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.
| The Contractor believes that FAR 52.204-21 and DFARS 252.204-7012 are more current requirements than NIST SP-800-171. | DFARS 252.204-7012 already requires implementation of NIST SP-800-171. The DD Form 254 will remain unchanged. | |||||
| 7 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section C, 2.17.2 Government Furnished Services (GFS), Page #97 | The Contractor shall be responsible for the proper installation, checkout and testing of all equipment and systems and making necessary adjustments or alignments in the performance or any other operation involving such equipment and systems as required by the FFG(X) System Specification. Substitution, elimination, or addition of services in Schedule B may be made in accordance with FAR 52.243-1 Changes – Fixed Price.” | The statement "The Contractor shall be responsible for the proper installation, checkout and testing of all equipment and systems" is in conflict with the previous statement in the test section which says the testing of GFE aligns with J-17. Would the USN please clarify? |
| The intent is for the Contractor to be responsible for installation, checkout, and testing of all equipment and systems, except for the stage tests identified in Attachment J-17. The language in the final RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement. | ||||||
| 8 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section C, 2.7 Earned Value Management and Cost and Software Data Reporting, Page #60 | Per DFARS 252.234-7004, “Cost and Software Data Reporting System” (CSDRS), the Contractor shall establish, deliver, implement and maintain a CSDRS. Per Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan, Attachment J-16, the Contractor shall prepare and submit Contractor Cost Data Reports (CCDRs) (CDRL C002), the Functional Cost-Hour Report (CDRL C003), Contractor Business Data Report (CDRL C004) and Software Resources Data Reporting (SRDR): Initial Developer Report (CDRL C005) for all contracts and subcontracts over $50 million. SRDRs are only required for software development efforts totaling over $20 million…. The Contractor is responsible for flowing down CSDR requirements contained in the prime contract to all subcontractors who meet the reporting thresholds specified in the DoDI 5000.02, or as required by the Cost Working Integrated Project Team (CWIPT). This includes requiring subcontractors to submit reports electronically directly to the DCARC using the CSDR Submit-Review System. | Will the Government clarify if the $50 million threshold applies to the full contract award expected to the supplier (locking in a value for a 10 ship buy) or will it only apply to US Government contractual awards with options (QTY 1-2 shipset via fiscal year)? | The $50 million threshold applies to the total contract value including all options. |
| 9 | 3/21/19 | Draft Attachment J-23 Weighting Factors for Labor and Material | Page #1, Paragraph A.4 | The certification requirements in this Generic FFG(X) CID trace to Aviation Bulletin 1N | FFG(X) CD Phase used Bulletin 1M. Is Bulletin 1N available? | Bulletin 1N will be posted to FBO as a Distribution Statement D document. |
| 10 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section C, 2.0 Item 0100 and Items 0200, 0300, 0400, 0500, 0600, 0700, 0800, 0900, and 1000 (Option): DD&C of FFG(X) Ship, Page #53 | The Contractor shall perform DD&C of each FFG(X) ship per the requirements outlined in the following subparagraphs. Performance under each line item shall not be dependent upon the Government exercising any other line item under this or any other contract. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the requirements set forth herein must be completed for each line item. | Section C 2.0 states that "Performance under each line item shall not be dependent upon the Government exercising any other line item under this or any other contract". CLINs 200-1000 (ships 2-10) are individually exercisable options, therefore, the Government could potentially "skip" exercising one or more options. |
| Given that the acquisition plan allows for individually exercisable options, what is the Government intent with the potential ability to skip annual ship awards so that Industry can properly identify the risk associated with out year pricing. | The Government's ability to exercise the options for ships 2 through 10 is depedent upon annual authorization and appropriations from Congress. The CLIN structure in this draft RFP allows for maximum flexibility in order for the Government to execute the program in accordance with said Congressional authorization and appropriations. However, the intent of the referenced Section C.2.0 requirement is to make clear that any and all efforts required to build each ship (engineering labor, trade labor, etc.) must be priced in the applicable shipbuilding CLINs, and completion of the scope in the shipbuilding CLINS shall not be dependent upon any other CLINs. | |||
| 11 | 3/21/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section F, Deliveries, Page #141 | |
| Section L, 4.1.1.2.3 Detail Design Approach, Page #241 | Section F |
CLIN 0100 SHIP #1 Estimated Delivery 72 months after contract award
Section L
4.1.1.2 Design Maturity and Detail Design Approach
The Offeror shall describe the maturity of the proposed design and the engineering approach used to develop the design to its current state. The Offeror shall describe the engineering approach it plans to employ to complete Detail Design in twenty-four (24) months or less. Section F states that the period of performance for the first in class ship is 72 months. Per the table of deliveries, the first in class POP is only 4 months longer than the second in class. In Section L, Section 4.1.1.2.3 "Detail Design Approach", it states that "The Offeror shall describe the engineering approach it plans to employ to complete Detail Design in twenty-four (24) months or less."
1.) Since there is not a separate CLIN for Detail Design and associated 24 month POP, can the Offeror assume that Detail Design is to be bid and executed as part of CLIN 0100 and executed during the 72 month POP?
2.) Can the Offeror assume that the Government intends for Detail Design to be conducted in parallel with Construction, rather than completed prior to the start of Construction? 1) Yes, Detail Design must be bid and executed as part of CLIN 0100. The delivery schedule for CLIN 0100 accounts for a Detail Design period, but the contract does not specify a discrete required delivery date for completion of Detail Design.
2) The Offeror may propose a a Detail Design period that does not reach final completion prior to the start of construction. However, per Section C.2.3.3.3, a Production Readiness Review (PRR) must be completed prior to the start of construction. The FFG(X) Design and Readiness Review Requirements and Criteria, Attachment J-13 establishes successful completion of CDR as an entrance criterion for PRR. Per Section C.2.3.2, a Critical Design Review (CDR) for CLIN 0100 may only be conducted once the Detail Design is sufficiently mature and the readiness of the design can be assessed per Attachment J-13.
12 3/21/19 Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 Section L, Paragraph 2.3 Offerors shall structure proposal submittals such that the required content is organized as follows: Will the Government allow a 200 page limit versus 100 pages for the Technical Volume? The Government anticipates that 100 pages will provide adequate space for Offerors to present a complete and sufficiently detailed proposal in response to the RFP requirements.
&12GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY FEEDBACK
DRAFT SOLICITATION N00024-19-R-2300
FFG(X) DETAIL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
&"Times New Roman,Regular"UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE &P OF &N
Q&A #13-15 (22 Mar 2019)
| # | Date | Source Document | Reference | Excerpt of Content | Question | Government Response |
| 13 | 3/22/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Paragraph C.1.0 General Requirements | "The Contractor shall complete Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) based on a parent design that has been demonstrated at sea, …" | The requirement for a parent design leaves open when the parent design had to have been demonstrated at sea. For the benefit of a demonstrated parent to be captured, it seems important to have had the Parent Design being used for Detail Design based on a ship that had been operationally demonstrated at the time of the RFP release for DD&C. |
| Will the Government revise the requirement for the parent design to have been "operationally demonstrated prior to July 2019" ? | The Government appreciates the suggestion. However, the final RFP will retain the definition of parent design established in the draft RFP. Please see Section M.4.1. | |||||
| 14 | 3/22/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Paragraph C.2.8.5 Condition Based Maintenance | Entire paragraph beginning with "In order to record…." and ending with "… signals in the interface." | The CBM system should provide onboard predictive analyis in addition to feeding a GFE monitoring system. We propose changes [provided separately] to the SOW that are intended to provide a more comprehensive description of the effort required by the Contractor to ensure a comprehensive onboard system. |
| Will the Government revise the requirement under paragraph C.2.8.5? | The Government does not intend to modify this requirement. The GFE system provides the necessary functionality. However, Offerors may propose additional design characteristics for consideration by the Government per the evaluation criteria established in Section M. | |||||
| 15 | 3/22/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Paragraph C.1.12.2 | All Contractor personnel accessing classified information or material associated with and/or performing work relative to the contract must be United States citizens and shall have and maintain at a minimum a final SECRET security clearance at time of contract award. | As worded C.1.12.2 could be interpreted to mean that all contractor personnel are required to be US citizens and have a minimum final SECRET clearance to work of the FFG(X) program for any work, not just classified work. |
Will the Government consider revising the language as follows, "C.1.12.2 All contractor personnel accessing classified information or material associated with and/or performing classified work relative to the contract must be United States citizens and shall have and maintain at a minimum a SECRET clearance at time of contract award."? The Government concurs. The final RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement.
&"Arial,Regular"&12GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY FEEDBACK
DRAFT SOLICITATION N00024-19-R-2300
FFG(X) DETAIL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
&"Arial,Regular"UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE &P OF &N
Q&A #21-45 (27 Mar 2019)
| # | Date | Source Document | Reference | Excerpt of Content | Question | Government Response |
| 21 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section B Note K Fill in for Profit Percentage Section L 4.2.2.8, Page 44 and 249 | The negotiated profit rate for any PIO under this contract shall not exceed [TO BE COMPLETED AT AWARD BASED ON OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL].4.2.2.8 Provisioned Item Orders 4.2.2.8 Provisioned Item Orders (PIO) |
Offerors shall not price PIO CLIN 6000. Pricing will be set forth on each Provisioned Items Order (PIO). Offerors shall propose a maximum profit rate for all PIO orders under the contract. The maximum profit rate will be incorporated into the contract under Section B. The proposed maximum profit rate shall not exceed 6%.
| (PIO) | This method creates cost plus a percentage of cost contracting. No contractor would propose less than 6% and the contract prohibits more than 6%. FAR 15.404 states that a structured approach should be used to negotiate profit. Specifying a low profit precludes good faith negotiation and it attempts to force Contractors to accept less profit than is reasonable for PIOs in order to compete for Frigate orders. Request the Navy remove this language from Section B and Section L. | Based on the anticipated requirements and historical experience, the Government has determined that a profit rate of 6% will provide sufficient incentive for performance of PIO efforts under the resultant contract. | |||||
| 22 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.3.1 and 4.2.2.3.1, Page 247 and 248 | Offerors shall price material in support of PDA and Engineering & Class Services CLINs on a cost-only basis. The fixed fee rate for each CLIN shall not exceed 8% of fee-bearing costs for the CLIN. | It is unreasonable for the Offeror to be expected to price material at $0 dollars. As the material amount is TBD and ordering is not even limited by the TBD amount, this would allow the Government to require the Contractor to provide acquisition services and material for an unlimited amount of material with no consideration. Request the Government limit the amount of material that may be purchased under the Class Services and PDA CLINs. In addition, allow the Contractor to bid the fixed fee % on labor it feels is adequate to provide consideration for the labor and the maximum amount of material it will be required to purchase. The labor pricing including the Offerors fixed fee will be part of the evaluated Price per Section M5.5 so the Government can be assured it will receive fair and reasonable pricing based on competition. | Offerors are not expected to provide material at zero dollars. The Government will provide in the final RFP an estimated value for each of the cost-only incidental material line items. No other changes will be made. | |
| 23 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section B Note G Subcontractor Hours, Page 43 and 44 | Per the Section H clause “Level of Effort – Alternate I,” the Contractor may fulfill the level-of-effort hours requirement under this line item by delivering subcontractor direct labor hours performed by those subcontractors specifically identified in the Contractor’s proposal as having hours included in the proposed level-of-effort. The Contractor may request approval from the Contracting Officer to deliver hours from subcontractors not identified in the proposal. The Contractor shall detail the technical scope to be performed by the subcontractor(s), the basic details of the subcontract(s) (including cost/price and fee/profit), and any additional information deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall not fulfill the level-of-effort hours requirement by delivering any hours incurred by a subcontractor that was not identified in the Contractor’s proposal without express written approval from the Contracting Officer. | The scope of work for these LOE CLINs is unknown and will be tasked by the Navy after award. Therefore the required subcontractors are unknown. The process for getting Government approval in advance is too laborious and is unworkable and will not permit the Contractor to be responsive to task orders. Rather than the Offeror listing in its proposal every potential subcontractor that the Offeror may be required to use based on the Government tasking, request the Government revise the language to state that the manhours from any subcontractor needed to perform the Government's tasking on LOE CLINs can be included in calculating and adjudicating the fixed fee under LOE CLINs. | As part of the draft RFP, the Government has defined the general scope of work associated with the level-of-effort line items. Offerors may refer to the general scope of work to propose specific subcontractors based on previous experience with similar efforts. In the event that subcontractors not originally proposed are required during contract execution, the referenced draft RFP language outlines the information that must be submitted to enable the Government to provide timely approval of the request. | |
| 24 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section C.1.13 Contractor Information Systems Security Requirements, Page 52 and 53 | The Contractor shall allow the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) to install network sensors, owned and maintained by NCIS, on the Contractor’s information systems or information technology assets when intelligence indicates a vulnerability or potential vulnerability. | This requirement does not describe the level of access that these sensors will have to the Offerors' proprietary information and employee personal data. While we are willing to engage with NCIS after Contract award about assisting with their cybersecurity efforts, we do not believe that an open ended requirement like that in the excerpt should be included in the RFP. The Offerors have no idea how intrusive these sensors might be or the data they might have access to. As the scope and ability of these sensors is unknown and undefined, there is a possibility that the installation of these sensors could result in a violation of privacy laws, the release of proprietary information, the release of privileged information and the violation of basic rights afforded individuals and/or the Company under the Constitution. It is therefore requested that this requirement be removed from the RFP and that it be replaced with a more general requirement such as "the Contractor will work with the Navy and Contractor's Subcontractors to secure controlled unclassified information from cyber intrusion." If the Navy is unable to remove this requirement, it is requested that detailed information regarding these sensors, how these sensors would function and what data they would allow the Government to have access to if they were installed be provided with the RFP. | The final RFP will be updated to reflect an option for a Contractor to install its own sensors, subject to NCIS approval. NCIS may approve the use of the Contractor's sensors if NCIS determines that the Contractor's own sensor capability is adequate, and the Contractor consents to cooperation with NCIS on cybersecurity, to include sharing information from its sensor capability and networks. | |
| 25 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 99, Section C, Paragraph C.2.19 |
and Page 133, Section E, Clause E-246-H004 C.2.19 Guaranty Period The Contractor shall correct defects for FFG(X) Ship(s) during the Guaranty Period of eighteen (18) months…
E-246-H004 GUARANTY PERIOD (NAVSEA) (APR 2018)
| (a) As used in this contract, the term "defects" includes any and all defects, deficiencies, deteriorations, and failure in the vessel(s). There shall be a guaranty period for each vessel beginning at the time of preliminary acceptance and ending twelve (18) months... | There is an inconsistency in the RFP's stated duration for the ship's Guaranty Period. See the two referenced RFP Sections. It is recommended that the Navy revise the referenced Sections to apply a twelve (12) month duration for ship's Guaranty Period. Twelve (12) months has been the norm for Navy shipbuilding contracts. | The guaranty period for each FFG(X) ship is 18 months. The reference to a 12 month period is an administrative error that will be corrected in the final RFP. | |||||
| 26 | 3/27/19 | Draft Attachment J-1 Contract Security Classification Specification DD254 | Section C.1.11, Page 52 and Page 53 | In addition to specific meetings identified herein, the Contractor shall attend and participate in meetings, as needed, to support the efforts under this contract, including design, production, and/or product supportability, or to inform the Government of emergent issues. It is anticipated that most of these meetings will be conducted via telephone with approximately 25% of the meetings held in the Washington, DC area. | This requires the Contractor to attend meetings "as needed" to support efforts under the Contract. Specific meetings such as design reviews and other meetings are identified elsewhere in the Contract Requirements. A requirement for the Contractor to attend undefined miscellaneous meetings of which 25% are in Washington is not appropriate for a Fixed Price Contract. Certainly the Contractor will attend meetings it feels are necessary to perform the Contract. However, meetings that the Government desires, but which are not setforth as specific requirements, such as working groups, design improvement activities, change boards etc. should be tasked under Class Services. We request the Government delete this requirement to attend undefined meetings or specify the meetings that will be required so they can be included in the bid. | The meetings described in Section C.1.11 of the draft RFP will be covered under the statement of work for engineering services. The final RFP will clarify this requirement. | |
| 27 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L 2.7.3 Fold-Out Sheets, Page 232 | Foldouts for the entire proposal are limited to a total of 25 foldout sheets. Foldout sheets contained in the Price Proposal do not count towards the 25-sheet foldout limit. | The Design Appendix may require more than 25 foldouts, given the number of files and varied drawing formats. Recommend the Government exclude the Design Appendix from the 25-sheet foldout limit to allow a more complete response | The final RFP will exclude the Design Appendix from the foldout page limit. | |
| 28 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L 2.1 Proposal Guidelines, Page 228 | Where the need to refer to other sections exists, such references must clearly identify the applicable page and paragraph number. | Section 2.7.1 states "paragraphs within sections do not need to be numbered". If paragraphs are not numbered, referencing them is inconsistent. Recommend the Government change the requirement form "paragraph" to "section". | The lack of visible paragraph numbering does not preclude identification of the paragraph number in a reference. Nevertheless, the final RFP will clarify this requirement. | |
| 29 | 3/27/19 | Draft Attachment J-23 Weighting Factors for Labor and Material | Section L 1.8.1 Identification of Government Support contractors, Page 228 | This Subsection contains a listing of the Government Support Contractors that NAVSEA plans to use to support their Government Source Selection Team and the proposal review activities. | Section L 1.8.1 lists the Govt Support contractors. To facilitate establishment of NDAs with each of the Support Contractors, the contact data for each one is requested. The Government customer is requested to provide points of contact and contact information for each of the Support Contractors. | The information contained in the draft RFP is provided for the purpose of obtaining industry comments and feedback only. Offerors may request the points of contact for Government support contractors following release of the final RFP. | |
| 30 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 93, Paragraph C.2.14.1 "Care of FFG(X) Ship During Construction" | The Contractor shall be responsible for any equipment damage to GFE that is beyond standard wear and tear. | The RFP contains the clause "H-228-H001 INSURANCE-PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE-LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS—BASIC (NAVSEA) (APR 2018)" which provides coverage for damaged GFE. How does this reconcile with the Section C requirement that "[t]he Contractor shall be responsible for any equipment damage to GFE that is beyond standard wear and tear?" | The referenced language will be removed from Section C.2.14.1 in the final RFP. | |
| 31 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 138, Paragraph HQ E-1-002 "Acceptance of Engineering Services" | Acceptance shall be made by the cognizant ACO upon receipt of a copy of the authorization for services and the original certification of performance. | Could the Navy elaborate on what is required for an authorization for services and the original certification of performance? What is the format for these documents? | The referenced requirements will be removed in the final RFP. | |
| 32 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 155, Paragraph H-245-H001 "Government Furnished Property (Incorporation) (NAVSEA)(APR 2018) | Upon Contractor's written request to the cognizant Program Manager, via the cognizant Contract Administration Office, the Government will furnish the identified government property for incorporation in the equipment to be delivered under Item 0100… | Will the successful offeror be required to formally request each piece of Government Property, or will the Navy deliver the Government Property in accordance with the applicable Schedule? | The Government intends to deliver GFE as outlined the applicable contract schedules. | |
| 33 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 177, FAR 52.216-4 "Economic Price Adjustment - Labor and Material (Jan 2017)" | FAR 52.216-4 "Economic Price Adjustment - Labor and Material (Jan 2017) | The RFP already has an Economic Price Adjustment clause in full text. Did the Navy intend for FAR 52.216-4 to be included in the RFP by reference? | FAR 52.216-4 will be removed in the final RFP. | |
| 34 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 203, FAR 52.243-7 "Notification of Changes (Jan 2017)" |
| Page 169 | FAR 52.243-7 "Notification of Changes (Jan 2017)" | ||||||
| 5252.243-9105 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES (FT) - ALTERNATE I (JAN 1983) | Did the Navy intend to include two versions of the Notification of Changes clause in the RFP? See also page 169-170 | Yes, the inclusion of both clauses was intentional. The final RFP will clarify the applicability of the clauses to each CLIN. | |||||
| 35 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | C.2.12 Software (SW); Page 85 of 275 | The Contractor shall develop the software and firmware required to achieve the requirements defined in the FFG(X) System Specification, and other associated FFG(X) requirements documents referenced in this contract. | Firmware is a sub-category of software. Section C.2.12 mentions both firmware and software discretely. Section 402 of the SSPEC provides separate definitions for both software and firmware. Throughout Section C, and other contract attachment (e.g. J-11, J-11 Appx E) typically only "software" is used. Where "software" is used without further modification, is it correct to assume that "software" is being used generically and includes firmware, or should it be understood within the context of the definitions provided in SSPEC Section 402? | Where "software" is used without further modification, "software" is being used generically and includes all necessary sub-categories of software required to achieve the requirements defined in the FFG(X) System Specification and other associated FFG(X) requirements documents referenced in the solicitation. | |
| 36 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | C.1.12.8 pg 52 | The RFP refers to the Program Protection Implementation Plan as Attachment J-12. The provided file is named "J-11 FFG(X) Program Protection Plan (PPP)" | The RFP appears to erroneously identify the FFG(X) Program Protection Plan as J-12 on pg 53 rather than J-11. | The reference to Attachment J-12 is an adminstrative error. The final RFP will correct the reference. | |
| 37 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Page 76 | Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) and Final Contract Trials (FCT) | What is the expected duration and schedule (i.e., days after delivery) of the Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials and the Final Contract Trials? | Notionally, CSSQT is expected to begin 6 to 8 months after ship delivery, and FCT will occurr 9 to 11 months after ship delivery. CSSQT is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks per ship, and FCT itself is a one week evolution. | |
| 38 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | pg 169, 202 | Two NOC clauses | Recommend removing one of the Notice of Change clauses | The inclusion of both clauses was intentional. The final RFP will clarify the applicability of the clauses to each CLIN. | |
| 39 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | pg 186 | "The total duration of this contract…shall not exceed five years" | Please explain this statement when options may be exercised through 2030. | The referenced language will be removed in the final RFP. | |
| 40 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 and Attachment J-1, DD Form 254 | Attachment J-1 and Pg 214 | Attachment J-1 states, "Supply chain risk provisions are not applicable to this contract." This seems to contradict page 214. Which is correct? | Please clarify | Supply chain risk provisions are applicable. Attachment J-1 will be updated to reflect this in the final RFP. | |
| 41 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | p 59 c.2.5.1 Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) | All data loaded to the Government IDE by the Contractor shall include associated attributes and shall be saved in Government defined formats and locations. | What are the data formats and locations? | The requisite format for CDRLs is defined by the identified, respective data item descriptions (DIDs). The Navy will define the locations on the IDE at a later date. | |
| 42 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | p 60 C.2.5.2 Contractor’s Technical Data Network | Data hosted on the Contractor established portal shall be publishable and discoverable. | Please clarify the definition of "publishable" and "discoverable" in this context | This requirement will be clarified in the final RFP. | |
| 43 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | p 60 C.2.5.2 Contractor's Technical Data Network | The Contractor shall provide the Government the ability to view any FFG(X) design data, including Product Model visualizations, resident on the network and the ability to download drawings, analyses, and reports. | What formats for Product Model visualization will be acceptable or required? Examples include: STEP 242, native CAD source, JT, 3DXML, and 3D PDF? | Native formats are acceptable. The final RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement. | |
| 44 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | p 60 C.2.5.2 Contractor's Technical Data Network | The Contractor shall provide the Government the ability to view any FFG(X) design data, including Product Model visualizations, resident on the network and the ability to download drawings, analyses, and reports. | What formats for Product Model data will be acceptable or required? Examples include: STEP 242, native CAD source? | Native formats are acceptable. The final RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement. | |
| 45 | 3/27/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | p 60 C.2.5.2 Contractor's Technical Data Network | The Contractor shall provide the Government the ability to view any FFG(X) design data, including Product Model visualizations, resident on the network and the ability to download drawings, analyses, and reports. | What formats for drawings will be acceptable or required? Examples for drawings include native CAD source, .pdf, .dxf, and STEP/IGES. If AutoCAD is required: Are there any requirements regarding layering and coloring conventions? | Native formats are acceptable. The final RFP will be updated to clarify this requirement. |
&12GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY FEEDBACK
DRAFT SOLICITATION N00024-19-R-2300
FFG(X) DETAIL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
PAGE &P OF &N
Q&A #73-79 (2 Apr 2019)
| # | Date | Source Document | Reference | Excerpt of Content | Question | Government Response |
| 73 | 4/2/19 | Attachment J-1, DD Form 254 | Block 13 | The following Security Classification Guide(s) or subsequent revisions apply to this contract. |
| [LIST OF SCGS] | Will the USN provide the security classification guides listed on the DD254? | Offerors may request a copy of the SCGs by contacting the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist for this procurement. The Government will provide SCGs only to those firms that have have executed a terms of use agremeent and possess the requisite security clearance level. | ||||
| 74 | 4/2/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section L, 4.3.9.3 Attachment J-30 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan | If award is made to an offeror that has a comprehensive subcontracting plan approved under the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans described in DFARS 219.702-70, the Government will update the contract at award to incorporate the clause DFARS 252.219-7004, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program),” in lieu of the clauses DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” and FAR 52.219-16, “Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan.” | The Contractor is a participant in the DoD test program for comprehensive small business plans and currently has a DCMA approved comprehensive small business subcontracting plan, which meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-9. |
| Will the USN add 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) OCT 2014 to Section I of the solicitation? | As stated in the referenced Section L excerpt, the Government will update the small business subcontracting clauses at award. | ||||
| 75 | 4/2/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section I, Page #176 | Section I – Contract Clauses |
52.223-20 Aerosols (JUN 2016)
| 52.223-21 Foams (JUN 2016) | Clauses 52.223-20 and 52.223-21 only apply to the maintenance or repair of electronic or mechanical devices and the construction of buildings or facilities. Given that the N00024-19-C-2300 RFP is for the shipbuilding, would the USN remove the clauses from the RFP? | The prescriptions at FAR 23.804(a) do not limit the applicability of these clauses to the limited instances cited. | |||
| 76 | 4/2/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section I, Page #179 | Section I – Contract Clauses |
252.246-7008 Sources of Electronic Parts May 2018 This Clause is applicable when usuing FAR Part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items. Since the N00024-19-C-2300 RFP does not include the use of FAR Part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, the Contractor requests the USN remove this clause from the RFP as it is not applicable. The prescription at DFARS 246.870-3(b) does not limit the applicability of the clause to FAR Part 12 commercial item procurements.
77 4/2/19 Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 Section I, Page #177 Section I – Contract Clauses
| 52.243-6 Change Order Accounting APR 1984 | This clause is applicable to supply and research and development contractors of significant technical complexity, if numerous changes are anticipated. Since the N00024-19-C-2300 RFP is for the shipbuilding, would the USN remove the clause from the RFP? | FFG(X) represents a supply of significant technical complexity. This clause will remain in the final RFP. | ||||
| 78 | 4/2/19 | Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 | Section C, 2.9.2 Contractor-Conducted Trials and Supported Trials, Page #74 | If Contractor proficiency reaches a level where the Contractor believes BST-1 and BST-2 can be combined into a single underway trials period and there are no conflicts between HM&E and the Combat Systems events during trials (which include enough time to complete weapons systems firings), the Contractor shall notify the Government. Government concurrence is required for the Contractor to combine the BST-1 and BST-2 trials. BST-2 will be conducted in close coordination with the Government SI&T contractors. | 1) As part of the BST, is it a requirement to conduct weapons firings and if so which weapons will be expected? |
2) Could the USN confirm that weapons firings are normally carried out by the crew of the ship after an extensive training cycle with the USN SI&T team as part of the Combat System Trial?
3) What cost would be the responsibility of the shipbuilder post delivery for weapons firings specifically since the systems are operated by the SI&T/USN team and the crew?
4) Would the Govt include weapons firings and preperations as part of the post delivery CLIN? 1) It is not a requirement to conduct weapons firings during BST. However, the Government intends for the Contractor to demonstrate each ship's ability to close the fire control loop in each warfare area through tracking of live targets and by completing simulated engagements to the extent possible in the geographic region where BST will occur.
2) Yes, any weapons systems firings will be performed by trained Navy crew.
3) and 4) For the final RFP, scope relating to support for weapons firings will be moved under the post-delivery CLINs. Specific tasking will be identified via Technical Instructions. Potential contractor post-delivery support scope for first-time weapons systems firings could include, but is not limited to, grooms and/or troubleshooting of architecture connectivity, support for data collection and analyses of structural test firings, and responding to ship-related technical questions in support of planning and executing the weapons firings.
79 4/2/19 Draft RFP N00024-19-R-2300 Page 231, Section L 2.5.2 In the event that classified information is found within any unclassified volume of the proposal, that volume will be destroyed and will not be evaluated. The Offeror will be financially responsible for damages caused by incorrectly classifying or marking classified information that contaminates a Government network. What is and is not classified data can be interpreted differently by different Parties. While it is certainly not our intention to include any classified data in the unclassified portion of our offer, the excerpt seems overly harsh where there could be an honest difference in opinion regarding whether an existing piece of data should be treated as classified. A more reasonable approach would be for the Government to redact any data it believes should be treated as classified and review the remainder of the volume. Furthermore, we do not believe that there should be damages where an Offer disagrees an item is classified but the Government takes action to sanitize its network. We respectfully request the Government delete these two sentences. Offerors must adhere strictly to the Security Classification Guides identified in the DD Form 254 when determining the classification of data. Any concerns or uncertainties about the interpretation of classified data may be submitted to the Government for consideration. The final RFP will clarify the procedures that apply in instances where classified content is found in an unclassified proposal volume.
&12GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY FEEDBACK
DRAFT SOLICITATION N00024-19-R-2300
FFG(X) DETAIL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
PAGE &P OF &N
File details come from the government source that posted it.