Responses to Draft RFP Questions.pdf

N00024-19-R-5519 Question Submittal Form Attachment J-S2

Question Number:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Response:

1 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Pages 10 to 18, Section B

If the Government awards a production CLIN (e.g. CLIN 2100), will the Government necessarily exercise the associated Integration and Test CLIN (e.g. CLIN 4300)?

No, each CLIN is independent. The Government may choose to exercise an Integration option for none, part, or all of the Production CLINs.

2 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 19, Section B

CLIN 9900, Data, is listed as FFP. Bidder's Library document "N0002419R5519 _ ANTICIPATED CONTRACT STRATEGY.pptx" identified this CLIN as NSP. Should CLIN 9900 be NSP?

CLIN 9900 Data has been updated from "FFP" to "NSP" on page 19. See Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

3 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 22, Section B Note C

Note C states "If exercised, production CLINs for both the Hemisphere configuration and Quadrant configuration will be exercised together in FY23 and FY24." Please confirm the correct interpretation is that for the FY23 CLINs, neither CLIN 2300 nor CLIN 2350 can be exercised without the other.

Note C has been updated. See Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

4 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Pages 25 to 28, Section C para 1.1.2

Section C 1.1.2 does not list software CDRLs but the Bidder's Library document "Quad Trade Study Report - OCT 2019.pptx" includes requirements for software changes.

Does CLIN 2040 include the software changes identified in the trade study?

CLIN 2040 does not include software changes. Software changes will be furnished by the Government.

5 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 29, Section C para 1.1.4.1

Section 1.1.4.1 requires "Each (V)7 System successfully passes DCMA inspection at origin." What drawing number will DCMA be inspecting? See Solicitation N0002419R5519, Section C, for updated requirements.

6 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 36, Section 3.2.3.2

Regarding the PCA, MIL-HDBK-61A states, “Configuration verification should be an embedded function of the contractor’s process for creating and modifying the product. Process validation by the Government in lieu of physical inspection may be appropriate.”

Can process validation be exercised in lieu of major disassembly? If so, can the SOW be modified to state that “Process validation may be exercised in lieu of major disassembly”?

Per the Draft RFP and Solicitation N0002419R5519, the Contractor shall conduct the PCA in accordance with the Government accepted PCA plan delivered under the contract. The PCA plan must meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

7 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 41, Section C Article 4.0

Section C of the SOW states, "The Contractor shall inspect GFI and GFP within 10 working days of receipt. GFI and GFP deficiencies shall be promptly reported IAW CDRL A057." Contractor requests 30 calendar days instead of 10 days.

Section C paragraph 4.0, has been updated. Contractor shall inspect GFI and GFP within 20 working days of receipt. See Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

8 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 41, Section C Article 3.4.5 (para. 2.)

There appears to be missing language in the second paragraph of Section C, Article

3.4.5 (para. 2.) at the top of page 41. See Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

9 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 58, Section D Please identify packing requirements for CLINs 4XXX. See Solicitation N0002419R5519, Section D, for updated requirements.

10 Draft RFP, Sections B - J Page 61, Section E, Clause E-246-H017

E-246-H017 Inspection and Acceptance of F.o.B. Origin Deliveries only includes two of the 9 integration 4XXX CLINs. Please provide inspection instructions for the other seven integration CLINs. See Solicitation N0002419R5519, Section E, for all updates.

11 Draft RFP, Sections B - J

Page 85, Section I, Clauses Included by Reference

If the contractor participates in the Small Business Subcontracting Test Program defined in 252.219-7004, are they permitted to submit a Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan in lieu of the individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan defined in FAR 52.219-9, with their proposal.

Yes, under the Small Business Subcontracting Test Program, a Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan may submitted in lieu of an individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

12 Draft RFP, Sections B - J

Page 85, Section I, Clauses Included by Reference

Contractor requests removal of 252.246-7001 Warranty of Data. DFARS 246.710(1)(i) states the basic clause applies to solicitations and contracts that are not firm-fixed price or fixed-price incentive.

Clause 252.246-7001 Warranty of Data has been removed. Clause 252.246-7001 Alt I - Warranty of Data (applicable to fixed-price-incentive CLINs) and 252.246-7001 Alt II - Warranty of Data (applicable to firm-fixed price CLINs) have been added. See Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

13 Draft RFP, Section M Page 2, Section M para 3.6

Section 3.6 states "Factors 4 and 5 are rated Acceptable/Unacceptable. When combined, Factors 1-5 are more important than Factor 6" but Section 2.2 states "analysis will not be performed for any offeror who receives an unacceptable rating for any factor." Should Section 3.6 read "when combined, Factors 1-3 are more important than Factor 6..."? Section M, paragraph 2.2 and 3.6, are correct as written.

08 Nov 2019 1 of 2

N00024-19-R-5519 Question Submittal Form Attachment J-S2

Question Number:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Response:

14 Draft RFP, Section M Page 4, Section M para 4.4

Section M 4.4 states “The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s ability to execute First Article Qualification Testing (FAQT) and Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) in accordance with the Government furnished testing plans and procedures to ensure production units comply with the configuration and functional requirements specified in the solicitation.” Please provide the Governing furnished testing plans and procedures.

See Section M 4.4 of Solicitation N0002419R5519 for all updates.

Government Furnished Information (GFI), Technical Data Package (TDP) various

Due to TDP restrictions non-incumbent bidders are unable to send drawings to vendors and suggested sources of supply are not provided in the TDP for these parts.

The below items are examples of simple machined parts that are normally sent out to multiple vendors to get best pricing/schedule. The below as an example and is not exhaustive of all part numbers with missing sources of supply information:

8712578H01 - Angle Bracket 8705293H01- 1U Panel 8705293H04- 3U Panel

Bidders are permitted to send GFI to vendors s as long as bidder's conform to the DD524, Security Class Guide, and TOU agreements.

Bidder's are required to provide an updated TOU that lists any subcontractors that are provided GFI. As noted, some parts that are simple machined parts may not have suggested sources of supply as many potential vendors could potentially make those parts.

Government Furnished Information (GFI), Technical Data Package (TDP) various

Due to TDP restrictions non-incumbent bidders are unable to send drawings to vendors and suggested sources of supply are not provided in the TDP for these parts.

The below parts may need to be outsourced for brazing:

8704948G01 - PACKAGE ASSEMBLY, HB RECEIVE MODULE

8704958G01 - COLDPLATE ASSEMBLY, LB RX

8704970G01 - CCA, BACKPLANE, RX

8704995G01 - COLDPLATE ASSEMBLY, HB RX

Bidders are permitted to send GFI to vendors s as long as bidder's conform to the DD524, Security Class Guide, and TOU agreements.

Bidder's are required to provide an updated TOU that lists any subcontractors that are provided GFI. As noted, some parts that are simple machined parts may not have suggested sources of supply as many potential vendors could potentially make those parts.

Government Furnished Information (GFI), Technical Data Package (TDP) various

Is there a requirements document stating the requirements/specifications for the Quadrant Configuration Cooling Equipment Unit validation? Has the CEU design in the Quadrant Configuration Trade Study Report, dated 04 Oct 2019, been proven to meet the Quadrant CEU requirements/specifications or is it expected that additional research and design effort will be required to make updates beyond those stated in the Trade Study Report? How will Quad CEU design requirements/specifications be validated, tested, and accepted?

There is not a requirements document or specification validating the Quad Cooing Equipment Unit. The Trade Study report provides a general guide to inform the design updates and performance modeling under the Quad Design CLIN 2040. The exit criteria for CLIN 2040 and CLINS 2X50 define the testing and acceptance of the Quad System.

08 Nov 2019 2 of 2