Amendment_0003.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 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 04-Dec-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

04-Dec-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 0003 to solicitation N00024-19-R-4102.

1) Section B is modified as follows:

a. Note C is deleted.

b. CLINs 0027 and 0028 are modified as follows:

CLIN 0027, the CLIN extended description has changed as follows:

From: “Engineering Services Labor estimated cost includes 20,000 hours. See Notes B and C.”

To: “Engineering Services Labor estimated cost includes 20,000 hours. See Note B.

CLIN 0028, the CLIN extended description has changed as follows:

From: “Support for Engineering Services (Travel and Material) COST ONLY, non-fee bearing. See Notes B and C.”

To: “Support for Engineering Services (Travel and Material) COST ONLY, non-fee bearing. See Note B.”

2) Under Section L, Section A. Physical Format is modified as follows:

a. The table has changed as follows:

VOLUME

TITLE

PAGE LIMIT

ORIGINALS

PAPER

COPIES

CD ROMs

I Technical (comprises Elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7)

75 1 4 6

Data Rights (Element 1.4)

10 additional pages allowed

1 4 6

Vendor Hardware Interface Requirements (Element 1.6)

30 additional pages allowed

1 4 6

II Management 30 1 4 6 Integrated Master

Schedule 10 additional pages allowed

1 4 6

III Past Performance 10 1 4 6 IV Pricing N/A 1 4 6

b. The third paragraph has changed as follows:

From: “The page count shall not include cover pages, title pages, table of contents, list of illustrations, tab pages, Small Business Subcontracting Plans, requested data rights assertions provided as an attachment, or Reference Information Sheets (RIS), described below.”

To: “The page count shall not include cover pages, title pages, table of contents, list of illustrations, tab pages, Small Business Subcontracting Plans, requested data rights assertions provided as an attachment, Reference Information Sheets (RIS) or the Integrated Master Schedule, described below.”

3) Attachment A.2, Requirement 123

From “screen shall local brightness control” To “screen shall have local brightness control as part of the unit”

4) Attachment A.2, Requirements 160 and 161 have been removed

5) Attachment A.3, Requirement 90

From “supporting 10 copper” To “supporting 10G copper”

6) Attachment A.4, Requirement 90 removed and Requirement 90.1 added

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

The following questions are answered:

Question #36: 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 offeror 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 #36 (Revision to Amendment 0002 Question #27):

a. That is correct, no supporting cost or pricing data is required for the FFP CLINs. The referenced clause is intended to cover situations where the government may require certified cost and pricing data prior to award, any future ECPs or other changes post-award.

b. Yes, “cost” should be “price”. CLIN 0030 Pricing Guidance text was updated as part of Amendment

Question #37: SABER Attachments A.1 through A.4 Performance Specifications a: Where specific OEMs and/or part numbers are called out, is it acceptable to recommend alternate methodologies or vendors as long as they are compliant to the Government's functional role?

b: Where specific OEM part numbers are called out that may not meet the stated temperature or other environmental requirements, can alternate solutions be recommended or is the Integrator responsible to ensure operational requirements on the stated equipment?

Answer #37:

a. Yes. Offerors can propose alternate solutions that comply with the requirements of the RFP and the applicable performance specification thereto. Where specified, OEMs and part numbers are provided for informational purposes only.

b. Yes. OEM Part Numbers are for informational purposes only, providing examples of equipment which meet the required specifications. The offeror is responsible to ensure the components selected for its design comply with all operational requirements of the RFP and applicable performance specifications.

Question #38: The Navy specifies that some cables must be EMI shielded or CAT 6 Ethernet. For the cables not specified as a higher grade cable, will standard COTS CAT 5 Ethernet cable be suitable? If specific MIL-STD or EMI connectors are not called out, will COTS connectors be suitable?

Answer #38:

a. For cables not specified as a higher grade cable, COTS Ethernet cable is suitable as long as it meets the performance specifications.

b. Where specific MIL-STD or EMI connectors are not called out, COTS connectors are suitable.

Question #39: Requirement 90 of SABER_Attachment_A.4_OOBNS_Performance_Specification dimension of the switches. “The enclosure shall have overall maximum dimensions of 12-inches wide by 12-inches high by 11-inches deep.” We have been unable to identify a switch that meets the requirements while satisfying the technical requirements called out in lines 82 and 83 of SABER_Attachment_A.4_OOBNS_Performance_Specification.

a. Is the specified size (12 W x 12 H x 11 D) a firm requirement?

b. Can the Government provide the switch manufacturer and model that was evaluated and met the government requirements?

Answer #39:

a. Requirement 90 has been updated per Amendment 0003.

b. Requirements 82 and 83 of Attachment A.4 were updated via Amendment 0002 to this solicitation.

Question #40: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification; Can the Government confirm that the total number of Ethernet ports is 8+2=10 ports?

Answer #40: The minimum number of ports is 10; two dedicated copper and at least eight SFP, of which four must be SFP+.

Requirement 87 “unit shall have a GbE RJ-45 copper port dedicated for IPMI, BMC, and iKVM support” Requirement 88 “unit shall have a GbE RJ-45 copper port dedicated for PXE and Wake-On-LAN support” Requirement 89 “The unit shall have at least eight SFP ports for supporting 10/100/1000 copper or fiber transceivers.”

Requirement 90 “Of the eight SFP ports, the unit shall have at least four SFP+ ports for supporting 10G copper or fiber.”

Question #41: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC Display Performance Requirements, Item 123 states ""The screen shall have brightness control." Can the Government explain if the display adjustment (brightness control) should be done from the outside of the enclosure and through a set of user buttons or can it be done remotely without any capability for manual dimming on the front of the unit?

Answer #41: The unit shall have “local” adjustment of brightness control as part of the unit. The offeror may propose a solution which meets the requirement (e.g., through a set of user buttons, or via other method).

Attachment A.2, Requirement 123 has been updated per Amendment 0003.

Question #42: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC Display Performance Requirements, Item 128 states "Display shall have at least two USB inputs." Can the Government explain the reason for 2x USB ports on the display? One port is understood as being the touch sensor interface but the functionality of the second USB port is unclear.

Answer #42: There are a few potential uses for the second USB port; two examples include: for failover/back-up of the touch sensor interface, and for maintenance/diagnostics of the screen.

Question #43: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC OIP Enclosure Mechanical Requirements, Item 138 states "The free side of the door shall include a padlock hasp for the use of a government supplied lock." Should we consider the padlock as being within the maximum envelope authorized for the OIP?

Answer #43 No.

Question #44: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC OIP Enclosure Mechanical Requirements, Item 160 states "An optional keyboard tray that attaches directly to the bulkhead mounting bracket may be provided for land based engineering site units." Can the Government confirm that the optional keyboard tray should not be considered as part of the maximum envelope of the BDC-DPC OIP, in either positions (folded up or down)?

Answer #44: Attachment A.2, Requirements 160 and 161 have been removed per Amendment 0003.

Question #45: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC OIP Enclosure Mechanical Requirements, Item 156; SABER DPC-BDC OIC Protective Device Requirements Item 203;

& Physical Security, Item 223.

Section 156 states "All Mil-Spec Circular Connectors on the bottom of the enclosure shall be provided with respective connector dust caps attached by chain or wire rope lanyard to each respective connector on the enclosure."

Section 203 states "The SABER DPC-BDC OIP shall include removable protective covers for external cable connections and ports."

Section 223 states "All spare jacks and ports within the system shall have physical safeguards to prevent their usage."

Can the Government further explain the I/O panel cover and more specifically confirm that dust caps as per requirement 156 can also address the requirements 203 and 223?

Answer #45: The dust caps in requirement 156 do satisfy requirement 203, but do NOT satisfy requirement 223.

Question #46: SABER Attachment A.2 BDC-DPC Variant A Performance Specification, Physical Security, Item 223 states "All spare jacks and ports within the system shall have physical safeguards to prevent their usage." If requirement 223 is not met with dust caps (as per question 9 above), will the Government please indicate the level of protection required by the safeguards to prevent usage of unused ports and jacks?

Answer #46: An acceptable physical safe guard to prevent usage for unused ports could be the ability to unplug or disconnect the connector from inside the enclosure. Port blockers could be another acceptable solution. These are not the only options to resolve this issue, and should not be considered an indicator of preference.

Question #47: SABER Attachment A.3 BDC-DPC Variant B Performance Specification; Can the Government confirm that the total number of Ethernet ports is 8+2=10 ports?

Answer #47: The minimum number of ports is 10; two dedicated copper and at least eight SFP, of which four must be SFP+.

Requirement 87 “unit shall have a GbE RJ-45 copper port dedicated for IPMI, BMC, and iKVM support” Requirement 88 “unit shall have a GbE RJ-45 copper port dedicated for PXE and Wake-On-LAN support” Requirement 89 “The unit shall have at least eight SFP ports for supporting 10/100/1000 copper or fiber transceivers.”

Requirement 90 “Of the eight SFP ports, the unit shall have at least four SFP+ ports for supporting 10G copper or fiber.”

Note: Requirement 90 is updated per Amendment 0003 from “10” to “10G” copper or fiber.

Question #48: SABER Attachment A.3 BDC-DPC Variant B Performance Specification, SABER DPC-BDC OIC Enclosure Mechanical Requirements, Item 132; SABER DPC-BDC OIC Protective Device Requirements Item 176;

& Physical Security, Item 195

Section 132 states "All Mil-Spec Circular Connectors on the bottom of the enclosure shall be provided with respective connector dust caps attached by chain or wire rope lanyard to each respective connector on the enclosure."

Section 176 states "The SABER DPC-BDC OIC shall include removable protective covers for external cable connections and ports."

Section 195 states "All spare jacks and ports within the system shall have physical safeguards to prevent their usage."

Can the Government further explain the I/O panel cover and more specifically confirm that dust caps as per requirement 132 can also address the requirements 176 and 195?

Answer #48: The dust caps in requirement 132 do satisfy requirement 176, but do NOT satisfy requirement 195.

Question #49: SABER Attachment A.3 BDC-DPC Variant B Performance Specification, Physical Security, Item 195 states "All spare jacks and ports within the system shall have physical safeguards to prevent their usage." If requirement 195 is not met with dust caps (as per question 9 above), will the Government please indicate the level of protection required by the safeguards to prevent usage of unused ports and jacks?

Answer #49: An acceptable physical safe guard to prevent usage for unused ports could be the ability to unplug or disconnect the connector from inside the enclosure. Port blockers could be another acceptable solution. These are not the only options to resolve this issue, and should not be considered an indicator of preference.

Question #50: SABER_Attachment_A.2_BDC-DPC_Variant_A_Performance_Specification AND SABER_Attachment_A.3_BDC-DPC_Variant_B_Performance_Specification. This question refers to all of the CPU requirements in Attachments A.2 and A.3. The specification really narrows down the playing field for a viable Xeon Processor. The main point is the “Embedded” nature of the Xeon processor (the other two types are mobile or server). Per Intel’s website, there are only 8 Embedded Xeon processors; and, of the 8 there is only 1 that meets all the requirements. This processor was launched in Q1’16; thus, it is almost 3 years into the life of the processor leading to a significantly reduced life cycle. Should such a processor be considered or can we consider a more recent version that does not necessarily belong to the embedded classification?

Answer #50: The specification was written as such in order for the offeror to select the best possible choice available, and be competitive amongst other bidders. The specific requirements provided present minimum standards that would be deemed technically acceptable by the Government. When these requirements were developed, the requirements had to be realistic enough to be achievable with what was available within the near future. The Government’s expectation was that industry would have better insight into upcoming products being released by Intel that could be taken advantage of for this RFP. "Embedded" is specifically called out as a requirement due to the relatively low power consumption characteristic of Embedded processors, which also typically means that less heat is also produced. Because less heat is produced, products of this type typically last longer and have a greater reliability. While the product stated in the question that meets the requirements was released in Q1'16, it is also likely true that motherboards for that processor were not available until early 2017, and improvements to those motherboards in order to take full advantage of those processor’s capabilities weren’t available until late 2017 and early 2018. Only processors with the embedded classification should be considered.

The solicitation remains unchanged.

Question #51: Section L Element 2.3 - Program Plan, letter b. Section states "The Offeror shall submit a proposed Integrated Master Schedule, to be submitted with the proposal in accordance with CDRL A032, that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the complexities of the SABER performance specification and approach to fulfilling requirements of the Statement of Work. The proposed Integrated Master Schedule shall identify by each major item the time spans for the SABER manufacture, test and qualification, rework, the need dates for supplies and services, and the responsible organizations. The Offeror shall describe the flow of activities required to assemble, inspect, and test SABER equipment and INCO spares, and describe rework procedures. The Offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Schedule shall identify by each major item: (1) the time spans for SABER manufacture; (2) test and qualification; (3) rework; (4) the need dates for supplies and services; and (5) the responsible organization."

May the proposed IMS be presented as an Attachment or Appendix to the proposal response and not count against page count? A submitted IMS in accordance with CDRL A032 will result in a very detailed proposed IMS that will be several pages in length."

Answer #51: Yes. The IMS, no longer than 10 pages in length, may be submitted as an Attachment. This Attachment will not count against the page counts of other proposal sections. Section L, Paragraph A has been updated as part of Amendment 0003.

Question #52: The government received a comment from a potential offeror expressing concern with identifying potential vendors or subcontractors by the deadline for proposal submissions. The potential offeror requested a 90-day extension to the deadline for proposal submissions.

Answer #51: The performance specifications were developed to provide offerors the flexibility to use any number of subcontractors which can meet the performance specifications. For example, there are a number of COTS vendors with knowledge of shipboard and/or industrial control system environments which have switch hardware available to meet the requirements provided in Attachment A.4. These are not the only options to resolve this issue, and should not be considered an indicator of preference. The Draft RFP with the associated Performance Specifications was released in May 2018 and the Final RFP was released on October 31, 2018; very few changes have been made to the Performance Specifications since their initial release. As outlined in the RFP Section C, Paragraph 6.0 and subparagraphs, all offerors will have to fully qualify their designs. SABER is a high-priority program for NAVSEA and meeting the requirements schedule is critical. A 90-day extension will not be provided.

The solicitation remains unchanged.

Question #53: Note C in Section B on page 86 refers to a Section H clause (5252.216-9112 ORDERS (COST- PLUS-FIXED-FEE)). That clause is not included in Section H or elsewhere in the RFP. Should there be an Orders clause in section H or should Note C be disregarded?

Answer #53: As part of this Amendment, Note C has been removed from Section B.

The Government believes it has answered all questions received to date via Amendment 0002 and Amendment 0003.