Bidders_Questions_Amendment_0006.pdf

N00024-19-R-5503 Bidder's Questions

Question Number:

Question Source:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Response:

RFP, SOW,

Section 3.10 Page 27

RFP Sections 3.10.1 (System Security Plan), 3.10.2 (SSP/POAM Review),

3.10.3 (Subcontracts), 3.10.4 (Encryption of Data at Rest), 3.10.5 (Incident Reporting), 3.10.6 (Coordination with NCIS) beginning on pages 27‐28, imposes cybersecurity obligations on contractors and their unclassified networks that are inconsistent with DFARS 252.204‐7012, SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER

INCEDENT REPORTING (OCT 2016).

DFARS clause 252.204‐7012 provides significant cybersecurity protections. Additionally, the DoD and the Defense Industry Base (DIB) are engaged in ongoing discussions to further understand specific cybersecurity risks and to define the most effective cybersecurity policies and procedures. The Navy and the DIB have also met to discuss how best to implement the requirements referenced in the 28 September 2018 US Navy Memorandum titled, “Implementation of Enhanced Security Controls on Select Defense Industrial Base Partner Networks,” that is the basis for Section C para. 3.10 (all subsections), pages 27‐28 and Section L 2.7.2, Factor 2: Management Approach, para.

2, page 109.

Additional Navy guidance on the interpretation and application of the USN Memorandum is anticipated. Accordingly, will SEA 02 remove cybersecurity requirements 3.10 from the RFP and engage with the base contract awardees about how best to address the USN Memorandum’s intended requirements, after additional guidance is issued by the Navy?

The RFP reflects current policy. The Navy does not intend to revise Section

3.10 unless updated policy or additional guidance is issued.

19 RFP Section F/Page 55

The RFP states that "the contractor shall be required to deliver no more than one (2) AN/SLQ‐32(V)6 Systems per month." Also, this statement is not clear to applying to variants (32A(V)6 or 32C(V)6)? Recommend revising the wording for clarity to read . . . . no more than two (2) AN/SLQ‐32(V)6 systems per month regardless of system configuration. See amendment 0005 for updated language.

20 RFP ‐ Section B Section B/Page 19 Can the Government please clarify the intent for CLIN 9800 since no data is provided.

CLIN 9800 is the CLIN under which CDRL requirements are delivered. The data referred to by the CLIN is data provided by the contractor per various CDRL requirements.

N00024-19-R-5503 Bidder's Questions

Question Number:

Question Source:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Response:

21 RFP Section F/Page 58

The RFP states that a waiver may be obtained for FAQT and coincided with a schedule that was shorter by two months for delivery of the first system (offeror B). For non‐incumbent, (offeror A) the shorter schedule which now includes FAQT provides a significant advantage to the incumbent. The previous RFP for SEWIP Blk 2 FRP FY16‐20 had two schedules, one for Offeror A (17 month for FAQT) and Offeror B (no FAQT). Recommend that the second schedule for no‐waiver FAQT be included.

Delivery dates for offer A and B updated. See amendment 0005 for updated language.

22 RFP Section L/Page 101

The contractor requests that all in process ECP's be provided on the NSERC Bidders Library to remove the advantage the incumbent has on material procurements.

There are currently no in process ECPs incorporated into the RFP requirements, and therefore no advantage. Any in process ECPs would not be incorporated into the contract until after award, and would be negotiated with the successful offeror as a scope change. All offerors are currently required to bid to the scope as outlined in the RFP.

RFP Section L, 1.6 Page 97

How does the Government want offerors to package the submission of Offer A and Offer B? Should offerors submit two Volumes, one complete Volume I for A & one complete Volume I for B, or should they submit one complete Volume I with an Offer A SF‐33 and Offer B SF‐33 contained within?

Offerors should submit one complete Volume I with an Offer A SF‐33 and Offer B SF‐33 contained within. See amendment 0005 for updated language.

RFP Section C, Sow 3.8.4 Page 26

Section C para. 3.8.4 Environmental Stress Screening states that “ESS shall be conducted on all units prior to any system level functional tests IAW the approved ESS Procedures and Implementation Plan, provided here as GFI. The contractor shall submit proposed updates to the Government‐ provided test procedure IAW CDRL A017. Results of ESS testing shall be documented IAW CDRL A018”

The HGHS ESS Test Procedures were provided as GFI, but the Block 2 ESS Test Procedures were not. Please provide the Block 2 ESS Test Procedures as GFI.

Confirmed. Block 2 ESS Test Procedures will be mailed out to all offerors that have requested GFI as soon as possible.

25 RFP Section L, 2.1 Page 101

A footnote in Section L 2.1. calls for qty (4) four additional electronic copies. The footnote conflicts with Section L 2.1 Table 2 Proposal Summary which indicates three copies are required. Please clarify how many copies are required. Corrected, see amendment 0006 for updates.

26 RFP Section L, 2.5 Page 105

Section L2.5 states “Proposals required to be sent to NSWC Crane shall contain only Volumes II and III (no cost data)...", however in the table in Section L, 2.1 it states qty (5) five copies of the offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) shall be provided to Crane. If there is cost information contained in the offeror's SBSP, are offerors permitted to provide the SBSP? The cost information contained in the SBSP is unrelated to this solicitation.

The SBSP is part of Volume I and should not be sent to NSWC Crane. The table in Section L 2.1 has been updated. See amendment 0006 for updates.