Amendment_0002_SABER.pdf

N0002417NR63024

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Nov-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N0002419R4102

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Oct-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Nov-2018

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE - MAIL STOP 2030

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2030

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0002419R4102

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this Amendment 0002 to solicitation N00024-19-R-4102.

1) Under Section C the following changes are made:

a. Paragraph 3.7.10 is changed as follows:

From: "The Contractor shall conduct vulnerability scanning of all shipboard units, training sets, and spare parts in accordance with 3.7.12 and 3.7.11."

To: “The Contractor shall conduct vulnerability scanning of all shipboard units, landbased units, and spare parts in accordance with 3.7.12 and 3.7.11.”

b. Paragraph 5.1 is changed as follows:

From: “The Contractor shall conduct a physical configuration audit and provide a physical configuration audit report of each training set with each training set delivery.”

To: “The Contractor shall conduct a physical configuration audit and provide a physical configuration audit report of each landbased unit with each landbased unit delivery.”

c. Paragraph 6.4.4, Table C1, Line K Test title is changed as follows:

From: “BIT and BITE Demonstration”

To: “Equipment Self Diagnostic Demonstration”

d. Paragraph 6.4.4.6 is changed as follows:

6.4.4.6 Functional Acceptance Test

The functional acceptance test shall include verification of all requirements within the SABER

Performance Specification Sections identified in Table C-1. The Contractor shall demonstrate that the startup procedure, including any component specific self-diagnostics, is completed within 90 seconds of powering on the equipment, and SABER is fully functional and available to accept user commands at all stations within 90 seconds of startup.

e. Paragraph 6.4.4.11 is changed as follows:

6.4.4.11 Equipment Self-Diagnostic Testing

The Contractor shall provide to the Government, a defined list of any included component self-diagnostics. For component self-diagnostics that are included, the Contractor shall ensure that results of any self-diagnostics performed can be recorded externally from the applicable component. A preliminary record of failed results for any included component self-diagnostics performed during functional testing shall be provided 30 days prior to PDR. A preliminary test plan for testing any included component Self-

Diagnostics shall be provided at PDR. The final test plan, test procedure, and record of results for included component Self-Diagnostics shall be provided at CDR.

f. Paragraph 6.4.4.11.1 is changed as follows:

6.4.4.11.1 Self-Diagnostic Demonstration Test

The contractor shall provide this test to ensure compliance with SABER Performance Specification

Attachments A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 Section 4 shall be conducted. The Contractor shall perform a test for any included Self-Diagnostics at the Contractor’s facility and witnessed by the Government.

g. Paragraph 6.4.4.11.2 is removed.

2) Section I - Contract Clauses

a. Clause 252.216-7006 ORDERING (MAY 2011) – the Landbased Site Equipment CLIN structure is modified as follows:

ITEM(S) ORDERING PERIOD

(Landbased Site Equipment)

0101-0102, 0201-0203, 0301-0303, 0401-0403 0 to 12 ADC

0111-0112, 0211-0213, 0311-0313, 0411-0413 13 to 24 ADC

0121-0122, 0221-0223, 0321-0323, 0421-0423 25 to 36 ADC

3) Under Section L the following changes are made:

a. 2.0 Pricing Proposal, III Pricing, the pricing instruction for CLIN 0030 is changed as follows:

CLIN 0030

For Section B, CLIN 0030, Offerors shall fill in a proposed total price of all spares and all quantities listed in Attachment L-1. The Government will procure the total quantity of all items in Attachment L-1 at one time. In addition to filling in the total price in Section B for CLIN 0030, Offerors shall also fill in the line item unit price and extended price for each spare line item in Attachment L-1 to show how the total price was constructed. A completed Attachment L-1 shall also be submitted by the Offerors with the Offeror’s proposal submission. Attachment L-1 will be incorporated into the awarded contract as Attachment D under Section J.

b. A. Physical Format the following are added:

“For graphics no smaller than 8 point characters may be used and for Figures and Tables no smaller than

10 point characters may be used.”

“A one-page cover letter is allowed and will not count against the page limitations.”

4) CDRL A032, Block 14 is changed as follows:

From: “Format must be readable by Microsoft Office 2016”

To: “Format must be readable by Microsoft Project 2010 or 2016”

5) Attachment A.1 SABER Rack Performance Specifications is changed as follows:

a. Requirement 177 removed; Requirement 177.1 added

b. Requirements 185 and 186 removed; Requirements 186.1 through 186.12. added

c. Requirements 187 and 188 removed

d. Requirement 239 removed; Requirement 239.1 added

e. Requirement 244 removed; Requirements 244.1 and 244.2 added

f. Requirement 248 removed

6) Attachment_A.2 BDC/DPC Variant "A" and Attachment_A.3 BDC/DPC Variant "B" Performance

Specifications are changed as follows:

a. Requirement 48 updated from “should” to “shall”

b. Requirement 49:

From: “The Embedded Computer Unit shall be IP 5X or better.”

To: “The Embedded Computer Unit shall be IP 50 or better.”

7) Attachment A.4 OOBNS Performance Specifications is changed as follows:

a. Requirements 82 and 83 removed; Requirements 83.1 through 83.3 added

8) Conformed copies of Attachments A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4, reflecting changes made herein, are included with this amendment.

The following questions are answered:

Question #1: Will the Government extend the date specified for receipt of offers?

Answer #1: The due date was extended until 1400 EST 17 Dec 2018 via Amendment 0001.

Question #2: RFP CLIN 0001 requires the development and delivery of one lot of qualified SABER equipment first articles within 10 months of contract award. The offeror believes 10 months is insufficient for satisfactory completion of this effort. We respectfully request that the delivery date for CLIN 0001 be modified to be 18 months from contract award.

Answer #2: The RFP remains unchanged.

Question #3: Given CLIN 0001 (First Article) is currently listed as having a period of performance of 10 months after contract award, should the start of the ordering period be changed from “0 to 12 ADC” for the referenced

CLINS (except CLIN 0030 is “0 to 15 ADC”) to an ordering start date that occurs once CLIN 0001 is complete?

Given changes that would occur during first article testing, it is presumed that the Government would not commence ordering until CLIN 0001 is complete.

Answer #3: The Navy may choose to order and install equipment on the first ships which is not fully qualified.

The RFP remains unchanged.

Question #4: Will the Government provide an anticipated Contract Award Date?

Answer #4: For informational purposes only, the Government anticipates an award by 4QFY19, but may award earlier if possible. Offerors should note that the proposal is required to be valid for a period of no less than 180 days, as stated in Section L.

Question #5: Section I, pg. 206, Clause 252.216-7006 ORDERING (MAY 2011), ITEM(S) (Landbased Site

Equipment), CLIN references 0211-1213 and 0221-1223. Should the above CLIN references read as 0211-0213 and

0221-0223? This would align with Section B, Note A.

Answer #5: Yes. See Section I change made by this amendment.

Question #6: Section C, Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2, CDRL A032 – Block 14

Reference:

Statement of Work:

4.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) - “The Contractor shall develop, implement, manage to, update, and maintain the SABER Program Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) by logically networking detailed program activities. The IMS shall be maintained in Microsoft Project 2016 format.”

A032 CDRL, Block 14: “Electronic format for regular copies acceptable. Format must be readable by

Microsoft Office 2016 Suite. Electronic distribution acceptable. “

Can the statement of work be changed to include the language in CDRL A032, which states that contractors utilize a format that is readable by the Microsoft Project 2016 suite?

Answer #6: Yes. See change made to A032 CDRL, Block 14 by this amendment.

Question #7: Section 1.0 (pg. 91) As stated in RFP Section 1.0: "With respect to software, the Contractor will be responsible for providing the system commercial operating systems including licenses and software diagnostic and test capabilities for the SABER rack and supporting SABER network equipment as defined in the Performance

Specifications Attachments A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4." With this all being commercial software, does the software documentation requirement in Section 3.2 (Page 95) still apply?

Answer #7: All COTS requirements apply. If the Contractor develops its own software code to perform any functions (e.g., self-diagnostics), then all software documentation requirements apply.

Question #8: Paragraph 3.7.10 (pg. 100), Section 3.7.10 states "The Contractor shall conduct vulnerability scanning of all shipboard units, training sets, and spare parts in accordance with 3.7.12 and 3.7.11." As there are no CLIN references to Training Sets, should this statement only apply to Shipboard Units and Land-Based Site Sets?

Answer #8: Yes. See change made to Section C, Paragraph 3.7.10 by this amendment.

Question #9: Paragraph 5.1 (pg. 106) RFP Section 5.1 states "The Contractor shall conduct a physical configuration audit and provide a physical configuration audit report of each training set with each training set delivery." As there are no CLIN references to Training Sets, should this statement only apply to Ship Sets and Land-Based Site Sets?

Answer #9: Yes. See change made to Section C, Paragraph 5.1 by this amendment.

Question #10: Section J. Attachment F (pg. 211) states "The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) for a part of this solicitation: ATTACHMENT F - Contractor’s Assertion of Rights in Technical Data

(To be incorporated from Contractor’s proposal at contract award)." Was a generic Attachment F included with the

Solicitation documents on FedBizOpps, or will the Government provide it at Contract award?

Answer #10: See RFP Section L, Element 1.4.

Question #11: Sections 1.0.c, 1.0.e and L.A. (pgs. 261 and 253) - RFP Page 261, Section 1.0.c states "The Offeror shall submit Sections B through J with all appropriate information completed as required by the RFP." and Section

1.0.e states "The Offeror shall submit all Exhibits, Attachments, and Schedules, which will form a part of any resultant contract. This includes all Section J Attachments which were included with the solicitation package. All

Exhibits, Attachments, and Schedules that require the Offeror to provide information, shall be completed in their entirety." RFP Page 253, Section L.A states, "However, the Offeror’s executed copy of the solicitation, if reprinted by the Offeror, shall be reprinted on plain paper only." Please confirm that completed/executed RFP Sections B through J that are to be included within the Price Proposal can be printed on double-sided paper with only the

Government headers as formatted in the RFP and that no additional Offeror markings are needed.

Answer #11: This is acceptable.

Question #12: SABER_Attachment_A.1, SABER Rack Performance Specification - SABER Rack Hardware

Design, Item 207 states "The SABER Rack Enclosure external height, not including any associated lifting attachments, shall not exceed 75-inches (+/- 0.06)." Does the stated equipment rack height called out provide allowances for growth/capacity planning?"

Answer #12: Yes; the equipment dimensions for the SABER Rack were established to account for future growth.

Question #13: SABER_Attachment_A.1-A.4 Performance Specifications- Will the Offeror be responsible for completing the following column for Proposal submission: "Comment"?

Answer #13: No. Attachment A has been revised by this amendment to remove the “Comment” column.

Question #14: Will there be or has there been an industry day for this program?

Answer #14: No. There has not been an Industry Day nor is one planned. A draft RFP and draft performance specifications were posted on FBO for industry comment.

Question #15: Given the design NRE required for CLIN 0001, time to order and receive materials, and time to test and certify CLIN 0001, please consider:

a. Shift CLIN 0001 from FFP to CPFF type to account for uncertainty in NRE efforts, thereby balancing risk between industry and government on this new and innovative design, qualification and production effort.

b. Consider allowing 12 months (versus the currently stated 10 months) for CLIN 0001 delivery to account for lack of float in ordering, testing and delivery integrated master schedules. Lack of schedule float creates higher risk for both the industry solution provider and the government customer.

Answer #15: a. The requirement is sufficiently defined to allow fixed pricing. CLIN 0001 will remain as FFP. The

Navy does not project this effort as a high risk development effort.

b. The Navy may choose to order and install equipment on the first ships which is not fully qualified. The

RFP remains unchanged.

Question #16: Request the Navy provide more detailed information about this new system, for instance by issuing a system description or a functional block diagram.

a. Please show interfaces to existing machinery control systems and data multiplexing systems and networks.

b. Please indicate any scalability required for SABER Taps and Aggregators, a pending future procurement.

Answer #16: SABER is designed to provide enclave level defenses, including boundary defense for communications coming into the enclave and monitoring (situational awareness) of systems and networks within the enclave.

a. Intra-enclave communications will be monitored via port mirroring or taps.

b. The performance specifications were written to account for future scalability needs, including Taps and

Aggregators.

Question #17: Request the Navy issue data interconnect diagram prior to the RFP to allow Industry to better understand the functional operations of this system.

Answer #17: The Government will not provide data interconnect diagrams as part of the RFP. See answer #16 for a high-level functional description.

Question #18: Will the successful integrator be responsible for the full configuration management, maintaining the records of the “as built” configurations based on each of the actual “as installed” interfaces?

a. What networks do the SABER racks, the BDC/DPCs, and the SABER OOBN Switch Unit monitor or interface?

Answer #18: The contractor will only be responsible for maintaining configuration management control of individual CLIN enclosures that are produced at the contractor’s facility. The contractor will not be responsible for maintaining as built, shipset level configurations of the shipset as installed on ships.

a. The Navy is not prepared to provide more details about the systems being monitored at this time.

SABER will mostly be a system or monitoring network unto itself. BDCs will control inter-enclave communication paths, with intra-enclave communications will be monitored via port mirroring or taps feeding into SABER.

Question #19: What are the physical security requirements for these cabinets and cable interfaces?

Answer #19: The performance specifications outline the physical security requirements for each unit.

Question #20: The RFP identifies some vendor/manufacturers specific to some of the equipment. Has the government identified candidate components or preferred manufacturers for the primary computer, management computer, intelligent display, monitor, or switches?

a. Will the Government consider providing a more detailed BOM with manufacturers and part numbers that meet the system requirements to interested bidders?

Answer #20: No. The equipment references in the RFP are “for informational purposes only” and provided as representative examples. Contractors are permitted to propose any equipment which meets the performance specifications.

a. No.

Question #21: SABER_Attachment_A.2 BDC/DPC Variant “A” and A.3 BDC/DPC Variant “B” SABER

Performance Specification questions:

a. Requirement 46 calls out a maximum size of 11.5” x 8” x 4” for the embedded computer. Requirement

46 states the computer shall not require active cooling. Does the size include the heat sink?

b. Requirement 48 says the Embedded Computer should utilize connectors that preserve commercial connectors. The word “should” indicates a subjective rule. Is this really a requirement or is line 48 for information?

c. Requirement 49 calls out the IP 5X requirement for the embedded computer. There is guidance for minimizing internal cabling and preserving the commercial connectors. Is the IP 5X requirement for the embedded computer as a stand-alone device or when installed in the QIP enclosure?

d. Requirement 50 calls out the maximum weight of 20 pounds for the embedded computer. Does this weight include the Heat sink?

Answer #21:

a. Yes

b. This is a requirement. “Should” has been changed to “shall”. See changes made by this amendment to

Attachment A.2 BDC/DPC Variant "A" and Attachment A.3 BDC/DPC Variant "B" Performance

Specifications under Requirement 48.

c. The IP rating should have been called out as IP50 versus IP5X for the embedded computer. As indicated the first digit of the IP rating refers to solids protection, and the second digit refers to liquids protection.

See change made by this amendment to Attachment A.2 BDC/DPC Variant "A" and Attachment A.3

BDC/DPC Variant "B" Performance Specifications under Requirement 49.

d. Yes

Question #22: SABER Attachment A.4 OOBNS Performance Specification line 48 states that the OOBNS Layer 3

Ethernet Switch must be rated for 0 deg C to 75 deg C operating temperature. Will a switch that meets the more common limit of 60 deg C be acceptable?

a. What is the operating environment that is driving the 75 deg C requirement?

Answer #22: No.

a. The 75 deg C switch operating temperature requirement is being driven by the requirement for the switch to be housed in an IP67 rated housing, for which the entire assembly is to be operational at a maximum of

50 deg C ambient air temperature.

Question #25: NAVSEA released a separate but related RFI for the SABER Taps and Aggregators (N00024-18-R-

4204). Does NAVSEA intend to insert that type of technology into the SABER solution as part of this contract?

Would any of those Taps and Aggregator physical solutions need to be added into the SABER racks designed as part of this effort? Does NAVSEA intend to reserve space and weight in these racks for future technology insertion, or will this be a “pull out and replace” type of upgrade?

Answer #25: No; SABER Taps and Aggregators will be separate hardware units. Any connections required for those future hardware units are already accounted for in the SABER Computing Hardware performance specifications.

Question #23: Will the government accept 8 point font for graphics and 10 point font in tables? Is it acceptable for

Figures and Tables to include 10-point font instead of 12-point font?

Answer #23: Yes, those fonts for graphics and tables only, respectively, are acceptable.

Question #24: Page 262, Section L, Volume IV Price Proposal paragraph 2.0 describes the response that offerors are to provide in the volume on CLIN by CLIN basis.

a. Please confirm that the Government is not requesting any data to support the price proposed for

FFP CLINs, or provide additional guidance to offerors. This question is asked because DFARS 252.215-

7010 appears on page 167 of the solicitation and the basic form of the clause appears on page 245, but the instructions for Volume IV do not provide a place for the submission of cost or pricing data.

b. The pricing guidance for CLIN 0030 on page 262 requests offerors to provide a total cost for all spares in attachment L-1, which also requests the cost for the spares. Since this is a FFP CLIN, should the word “cost” really be “price?” It would seem reasonable for offerors to propose a price for the spares, which includes the contractors fee/profit.

Answer #24:

a. That is correct, no supporting cost or pricing data is required for the FFP CLINs. The referenced clause is intended to cover any future ECPs or other changes post-award.

b. Yes, “cost” should be “price”.

Question #25: Section L Outline does not require a Cover Letter. Is it acceptable to provide a Cover Letter separate from Volumes 1 - III (which are to be bound together)? If so, does the Cover Letter add page count on any of the

Volumes?

Answer #25: Yes, a not- to-exceed one-page Cover Letter is acceptable and will not count against the page count limitations.

Question #26: Reference CLIN 0001: DELIVERY DATE = 10 mths. ADC (AFTER DATE OF CONTRACT).

Will the Navy consider extending the delivery schedule for CLIN 0001 to 14 months ADC to ensure sufficient time to complete: (1) first article design, build and verification, (2) the full set of required environmental qualification and testing, and (3) all of the Integrated Logicstics Support products that are dependent on a finalized and validated design?

Answer #26: No. The delivery schedule for CLIN 0001 remains unchanged.

Question #27: Reference Section L, Clause 252.215-7010 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR

PRICING DATA AND DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA--BASIC (JAN 2018).

“The Offeror shall prepare and submit certified cost or pricing data and supporting attachments in accordance with the instructions contained in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408, which is incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as though it were inserted here in full text.”

N00024-19-R-4102 is considered a competitive solicitation, which is usually exempt from Certified Cost or

Pricing Data (assuming adequate price competition). However, 252.215-7010 requires the offerer to submit certified cost or pricing data. It should be noted that the outline for submission of a pricing proposal, page 262 of the RFP, does not provide any direction for the certified cost or pricing data submission. Will the Government provide clarification on the applicability of the requirement within this solicitation?

Answer #27: See Q & A #28.

Question #28: Reference Section D, WARRANTY NOTIFICATION FOR ITEM(S) 0001, 0101-1445, 0030 and

0031 - (NAVSEA) (NOV 1996). Warranty Statement: “THIS ITEM WARRANTED UNDER CONTRACT

N00024- (to be filled in at contract award) TO CONFORM TO DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, AND

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND BE FREE FROM DEFECTS IN MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP

FOR 2 YEARS (24 MONTHS) FROM DATE OF INSTALLATION AT THE DESIGNATED FACILITY OR

ABOARD THE GIVEN VESSEL. IF ITEM IS DEFECTIVE NOTIFY PEO SHIPS AM AND THE PCO.”

Will the US Navy provide the anticipated installation dates to the offeror in order to properly bid warranty coverage as it is currently unbounded?

Answer #28: The installation of each system by the Government activity will typically start 3 months after delivery of the SABER equipment from the SABER hardware vendor and the installations will typically last 3 months in duration. The warranty would start at the end of each installation.

Question #29: Reference Section C, ATTACHMENT A.4, CLINs 0401-0423 and 1401-1445; Line Item 81.

Is there a base configuration to include for the OOBNS in terms of quantity of network ports per unit?

Answer #29: See changes made by this amendment to Attachment A.4.

Question #30: Reference Attachment H, Items 2 and 3, Solicitation N00024-18-R-4203 and Original Date:

20180102.

Will the US Navy provide an updated Attachment H for the offeror to complete their secret certification?

Answer #30: A revised Attachment H, DD254 will be issued shortly after contract award.

Question #31: Reference Sections C 1.4, 6.4.4, and Table C1

1.4 Applicable Documents “MIL-HDBK-344A: Environmental Stress Screening of Electronic

Equipment”

6.4.4 Test Requirements “All four types of different hardware units required by this RFP shall each successfully pass all test and inspection requirements described in Table C1.”

The referenced document as listed in section 1.4 refers to Stress Screening, but no test related to Stress Screening is included in Section 6.4.4; Table C1. Should the offeror assume in its proposal that the US Navy does not intent to include the stress testing as a requirement?

Answer #31: Yes, stress screening of the equipment is not required.

Question #32: Reference ATTACHMENT A.1, Item 175 “The SABER Rack Enclosure shall have at a minimum one network switch.”

The SABER rack configured as specified in the performance specification contains over 100+ network connections. Is it the Government’s intent to have all connections simultaneously wired to an available network switch as the base configuration?

Answer #32: See change made by this amendment to Attachment A.1.

Question #33: Reference Section C, 6.4.4, Table C1 Line K, 6.4.4.6, 6.4.4.11

6.4.4 BIT and BITE Demonstration “As noted in the applicable Performance Specification for each of the four types of units. “

6.4.4.6 “The functional acceptance test shall include verification of all requirements within SABER

Performance Specification Sections identified in Table C-1. The Contractor shall demonstrate that the startup procedure, including BIT and BITE, is completed within 90 seconds and the SABER is fully functional and available to accept user commands at all stations within 90 seconds of startup.”

6.4.4.11 Built-In-Test (BIT) and Built-In-Test Equipment (BITE) Testing “The Contractor shall provide to the Government definition of the equipment failure modes and identify the failures detectable by the BIT and BITE.

A preliminary list of failure detected by BIT and BITE shall be provided 30 days prior to PDR. A preliminary BIT and BITE test plan and test procedure shall be provided at PDR. The final BIT and BITE test plan, test procedure, and failure list shall be provided at CDR.“

6.4.4.11.1 A BIT and BITE Demonstration Test “The contractor shall provide this test to ensure compliance with SABER Performance Specification Attachments A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 Section 4 shall be conducted. This demonstration shall include diagnostic circuits, failure detection indicators, and BITE system malfunctions and indicators.”

6.4.4.11.2 The BIT and BITE Demonstration Test “The contractor shall perform this test at the Contractor’s facility and witnessed by the Government.”

There are no BIT and BITE requirements defined in the Performance Specifications for each of the four types of units. Will the Government confirm if BIT and BITE apply to this solicitation?

Answer #33: To clarify this requirement, all references to BIT and BITE test in Section C shall be modified to equipment self-diagnostics, a verification the units are in proper working order. See change made to Section C, Paragraph 6.4.4 and subparagraphs by this amendment.

Question #34: Section C - Descriptions and Specifications; Page 101, Para 3.7.14, CDRL 014 “The Contractor shall submit RMF data artifacts to the government.”

Does the USN AO require any other Cyber artifacts to make a PIT System ATO decision, other than those specifically called out as CDRLs in the SABER RFP, vice the complete list of RMF artifacts shown in the DI-

MGMT-82000. Our understanding is only the specific Cyber CDRLs will be provided and the contractor will not be performing all the Risk Management Framework steps or providing any additional supplemental RMF documents.

Answer #34: Correct. The Contractor will submit the Cyber CDRLs and the Navy will submit the full RMF package (HW and SW) via the process.

Question #35: Page 255, section L, Volume I Technical Proposal Element 1.3 Hardware Environmental

Qualification states that offerors are to provide the details of a testing plan that will “ensure delivery of final environmental testing results no later than 150 days prior to the delivery of a ship set.”

a. Assuming Contract Award includes the award of CLIN 0001 (NRE, Qualification and Testing) and contract award is the start date of that schedule, what is the end date?

b. When is the first “ship set” scheduled to be delivered?

c. Please confirm that “final environmental testing results” include the results of the tests from an independent test facility of an approved test plan (and associated test data) and that the “final environmental testing results” does not include the test certification from NAVSEA or its representatives.

Answer #35:

a. CLIN 0001 delivery date is 10 months After Date of Contract (ADC). The Navy may choose to order and install equipment on the first ships which is not fully qualified.

b. The Government will not release the ship set delivery schedule as part of the RFP.

c. This is correct.