J-S2_-_Offeror_Questions_BATCH_2_16MAY2019.pdf

N00024-19-R-5111 Offeror Questionnaire Template

BATCH 2

Attachment J-S2

Question

Number:

Date

Submitted:

Question

Source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Answer:

5/1/19 RFP None

Please confirm if the Government will amend the RFP to include the requirement for

Engineering Services or Technical Instruction Services CLIN to issue funding for out of scope work.

No. Engineering services requirements are not included in this effort.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 45; Item

This section discusses the need for the Production Special Test Equipment (PSTE). Will the

Government issue the current TDP associated with this requirement?

In accordance with RFP Amendment 001, the TDP has been provided to all offerors that have submitted a signed TOU in accordance with the RFP. Furthermore, it is the contractor's responsibility to determine what PSTE is required to perform this requirement.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 47 ;

Section 1.1

Please confirm that the program office will execute the acquisition and total life cycle system support. This section references PEO IWS 5.0 but we believe its PEO IWS 1.0.

PEO IWS 1.0 will execute the acquisition and total life cycle system support. Please see RFP

Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 51; Section

2.5

The RFP states ANSI/EIA-7488, Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is required in the contract award. Department of Defense released an Earned Value Management

Implementation Guide (EVMIG) dated 18 JAN 19. Section 2.2.2.5 entitled "Exclusions for

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Type" states "The application of EVMS on FFP contracts and agreements is discouraged, regardless of dollar value. Since cost exposure is minimized in an FFP environment, the Government may elect to receive only the IMS in order to manage schedule risk. If knowledge by both parties requires access to cost/schedule data due to program risk, the PM should re-examine the contract type to see if an incentive contract is more appropriate for the risk." The link to the guide is provided below for your records:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/evm/assets/docs/DOD%20EVMIG-01-18-2019.pdf

It is known that the contract award is a Build To Print production contract and the contract type will be Firm Fixed Price. Typically, EVMS is associated with service contracts, Cost Plus or fixed price incentive. Due to need and/or the size or complexity of this effort, EVMS may not be a good fit for this requirement. We are requesting the Government reconsider the requirement of Earned Value Management in this RFP.

The Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirement has been removed. Please see

RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 51; Section

2.4

The Government lists the OPNAV Instructions. The Contractor respectfully requests a copy of OPNAVINST C5510.93D1, Government Implementation of National Policy on Control of

Compromising Emanations.

The OPNAV Instruction OPNAVINST C5510.93D1 has been removed. Please see RFP

Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 51; Section

2.5

The Government references several "Non-Governmental Documents." The contractor respectfully requests a copy of these documents:

OD 32396, Rev P

OD 32187

DOD 5220.22M

OD 32396 and OD 32187 are provided with the TDP to offeror(s) who submit a signed TOU agreement, except for DOD 5220.22M (Change 2) which is publicly available. Please contact the PCO or contract specialist point of contacts listed in the RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 56; Section

3.2.8

Build To Print efforts typically do not process computer programs requiring TEMPEST security requirements. Please specify how TEMPEST is applicable to the Build To Print award, or please consider modifying the requirement.

TEMPEST security requirements have been removed. Please see the RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 56; Section

3.2.8.1

Base on the past performance in other Government contracts with a similar scope, the orders will be marked "FOB Origin." The Government considers ITAR satisfied if FOB Origin shipment is arranged through express transportation. Will the Government modify this section to be applicable only for FOB Destination type orders?

The government does not understand the question, please resubmit the question with further clarification.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 59; Section

3.3.3

The contractor conducts and/or participates in weekly reviews with the Government's COR specifically discussing the delivery schedule. Would the Government consider allowing the contractor to provide a date range for the FAT in lieu of 14 days prior to commencement of

FAT for each MK82/MK200?

No. The notification needs to be 14 days prior to the commencement of FAT.

12 March 19 1 of 4

Attachment J-S2

Question

Number:

Date

Submitted:

Question

Source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Answer:

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 60; Section

3.3.6

Will the Government please clarify which part of the TEPP of C.3.3.6 will be applicable for the First Article Units (CLIN 0001 and 0002) as defined by the Contract Line Item

Descriptions on pg. 42?

The associated CDRL A008 and CDRL A012 for failure reporting (C.3.3.6.1) cover traditional

Build to Print test failures, i.e. Factory Acceptance Test, System Burn-In, and FRACAS.

Production Qualification (C.3.4) also cites tradition Build to Print events for FCA, LPCA, and

PQR. But Environmental Qualification Testing (EQT) in C.3.3.9 cites EQT as part of first article inspection, which is atypical for Build to Print and used for design verification.

If EQT is required for FAUs, will the Government provide EQT test results and/or Request for Deviations/Wavers associated with the TDP baseline so contractors can evaluate cost impacts for known risks for associated EQT compliance.

Please refer to the answer to question 5 in the J-S2 - Offeror Questions_01MAY2019 posted on FBO.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 69; Section

3.10

The contractor shall submit a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) (CDRL A026) that provides a plan of action and milestones (POA&M) for resolving hazardous issues associated with

MK 82/MK 200 production and test for Build to Print program. However, the contractor requests the Government remove "use." , as user safety in shipboard operation is responsibility of the Design Agent and design of the system.

"Use" was removed. Please see RFP Amentment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 165;

Section 2.1 Are the Volume I appendicies delivered as separate documents in the electronic version? Yes.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 165;

Section 2.1

The table on page 165 (section 2.1) does not call out a separate Contracts Volume but section 3.4 is clearly Contracts Information. Should 3.4 be embedded within the Price

Proposal or should Contracts be a standalone volume? If combined, both Sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.2 require a completed Section B. Does a completed Section B need to be included twice?

SF 33 Solicitation Set/Completed Contract is not a standalone volume. Section B does not need to be included twice. Paragraph 3.4 of Section L in the RFP states "Volume III must contain a complete SF 33 Solicitation Set/Completed Contract that includes all the subsections listed below Section 3.4."

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 166 & 169, Section L

Please confirm if the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) should be submitted in only PDF format.

Yes. See Section L paragraph 3.1.1 of the RFP.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 169;

Section 3.1.1 Does each Volume I appendix need a title page? Each Volume I appendix should be properly identified in the proposal.

12 March 19 2 of 4

Attachment J-S2

Question

Number:

Date

Submitted:

Question

Source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Answer:

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 167 & 169;

Sections 2.3

& 3.1.1

Will blank pages used to align sections with tabs be exempt from the page count?

Blank pages marked "Intentionally marked blank" will be exempt from the page count.

Please see RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 170;

Section 3.2

“The Offeror shall discuss past performance in the implementation of form-fit-function replacement solutions similar to that proposed for its Replacement Transmit and Receive

Module solution in Volume I.” TR Module replacement? It only appears in this one paragraph. Can the Government elaborate on the TR Module solution requirement (s).

TR Module has been removed. Please see RFP Amendment 002

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 171;

Section 3.3

Section 3.3 on page 171 calls out pricing spreadsheets. Is there a specific format for these spreadsheets? Also, what data is required in these spreadsheets?

The pricing spreadsheets must adhere to the parameters called out under Section L paragraph 3.3 of the RFP.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 171;

Section 3.3

Section 3.3.1 on page 171 states “The Offeror shall submit other than certified cost or pricing data, as detailed in this solicitation.” Please provide specifics on the data the

Government is requesting.

Please refer to the answer to question 11 in the J-S2 - Offeror Questions_01MAY2019 posted on FBO.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 172;

Section 3.3.3

This section states "…including completed stepladder pricing tables (See Note D)." Was this meant to reference Note E?

This was meant to reference Note E. Please see the RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 173;

Section 3.4.6

Section 3.4.6 states the Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix for the technical

Volume. Can the Cross Reference Matrix be excluded from the Volume I page count?

Yes. The Cross Reference Matrix is excluded from the page count. Please see Section L paragraph 2.1 in the RFP Amendment 002.

5/1/19 Attachments None

Attachments 3, 6, 8, 10-13 were not provided with the RFP. Will they be provided later or is contractor format acceptable?

Attachments 3, 6, 8, and 10-13 are to be proposed by the Offeror, if applicable, and are incorporated into the contract at the time of award.

5/1/19 RFP

Pg 175;

Section M

Section M does not contain the standards for evaluation factors for Appendix D. Will the

Government evlauate Appendix D?

The production schedule is assessed in accordance with Section F on a technically acceptable/unacceptable basis under Factor 1. Please see RFP Amendment 002.

5/2/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Attachment 1

Subsection

1G

(Ammedment

1)

Please confirm that part number 2898999, Antenna Disable Switch and part number

7454737, TV Control Unit are no longer part of the Interim Repair Parts list.

Confirmed. These parts will only be included in a separate kit (CLIN X005)

5/2/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Attachment 1

Subsection

1G

(Ammedment

1)

Please confirm that part number 2898999, Antenna Disable Switch and part number

7454737, TV Control Unit are no longer part of the Maintenance Assistance Modules

(MAMs) for FMS parts list.

Confirmed. These parts will only be included in a separate kit (CLIN X005)

5/2/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Attachment 1

Subsection

1G

(Ammedment

1)

A part number listed in the “AEGIS Fire Control System Maintenance Assistance Modules

(MAMs) For FMS” appears incorrect. Printed Wiring Board Assy, ORTS INTFC shows a part number of 6289598. Please confirm that the correct number is 6259598 (note that

3rd digit should be "5" not "8").

Confirmed that the correct P/N is 6259598, please see this correction in the RFP

Amendment 002 and Attachment 1 Amendment 002.

5/2/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

(Ammedment

1) paragraph

3.3.3

Please confirm the (new) requirement that System Burn-in Test (SBT) shall operate 48 hours error-free. TR5365225 Rev G Test Requirements Specification and WS 10501 Critical

Item Development Specification (23 Nov 1997) do not explicitly define SBT requirements or duration. However, WS10233 Rev C , section 3.2.2 does specify a 20-hour (total) burn-in which is consistent with the minimum burn-in duration of 20 -hours performed for current production testing as specified in the government approved Quality Test Instruction.

Confirmed that the SBT shall operate 48 hours error-free. Please see the RFP Amendment

002.

5/2/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

(Ammedment

1) paragraph 7

Please confirm that the contractor will retain ownership and title to PST/PSTE as stated in paragraph 7 as the FAR clauses on PSTE/PST paid for by the Government states otherwise.

The Government does not understand this question. Please provide the referenced FAR

Clause. Please resubmit the question with further clarification.

12 March 19 3 of 4

Attachment J-S2

Question

Number:

Date

Submitted:

Question

Source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Answer:

5/6/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Attachment 1

GFP

Attachment, Item 0001 &

(Amendment

1)

Will the Government Furnished Property Gyroblocks, Item 0001 (6259584) and Item 0002

(7517297), be fully tested such that they will not require Hardware Qualification Testing

(EQT), Environmental Qualification Testing (EQT), and/or Functional Electrical Testing prior to installation on the MK82 ?

Yes.

5/6/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Attachment 1

GFP

Attachment, Item 001

(Amendment

1)

Will the Government Furnished Property Plug In Relay Assembly, Item 0003

(2259390G1/5193015), be fully tested such that they will not require Hardware

Qualification Testing (EQT), Environmental Qualification Testing (EQT), and/or Functional

Electrical Testing prior to installation in the MK200 ?

Yes.

5/7/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Section L, Section 3.2

(Amendment

1)

Please confirm if the following sentence should be in section 3.2 Volume II: FACTOR 2 -

PAST PERFORMANCE paragraph, " The Offeror shall discuss past performance in the implementation of form-fit-function replacement solutions similar to that proposed for its

Replacement Transmit and Receive Module solution in Volume I . " The MK82 / MK200 TDP does not reference a Replacement Transmit and Receive Module. Should this sentence be omitted or modified ? Please advise.

Replacement Transmit and Receive module has been removed. Please see section L paragraph 3.2. of the RFP Amendment 002.

5/9/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Section C, page 62, paragraph

3.4.1 and

Section F, page 101, "CLINS

001…5002" paragraph

(Ammendme nt 1)

SOW Section C3.4.1 states, “The contractor shall manufacture, build, and deliver one (1)

MK82 Director and one (1) MK 200 Director Controller which shall be subject to First Article requirements unless otherwise directed by the Government.."

Is it the Government's requirement to manufacture and deliver complete first article MK82

Director / MK200 Director Controller units ( FAU’s) in addition to the CLIN deliverables

1001 & 1002 thru 5001 & 5002?

Yes; however, each offeror may submit a waiver of First Article Requirements. Please see

NAVSEA Clause C-209-H003 under Section C, NAVSEA Clause M-209-H002 under Section M, and Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price under Section M

5/9/2019

RFP

N0002419R51

Section C, page 62, paragraph

3.4.1 and

Section F, page 101, "CLINS

001…5002" paragraph

(Ammendme nt 1)

If separate FAU units for CLIN 0001 and 0002 are required as deliverable items, do they have to be delivered with in the same 18 month period as the first three units for CLIN

1001 and 1002 ?

Yes

12 March 19 4 of 4