Bidders_Questions_N0002419R5600_Amend_0011.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 71 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00024-19-R-5600
About this file
This document outlines a competitive solicitation for the production of Network, Processing, and Storage Equipment. The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to issue a full and open solicitation for the manufacture, assembly, and testing of Technical Insertion Sixteen Modification 1 equipment from the Common Processing System and portions of the Aegis Weapon System Aegis Modernization Upgrade. The scope of work includes all labor, material, and other costs required to fabricate, manufacture, assemble, and test the computer processing, storage, and networking equipment as well as ancillary equipment and spares from fiscal year 2020 through 2025. Engineering services for technical data package updates, follow-on configuration technical data, and diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortage issue resolution are also within scope. A firm-fixed price contract will be awarded to the responsible offeror deemed to provide the lowest price, technically acceptable proposal per FAR 15.101-2. Deliveries are anticipated free on board at origin, and all responsible sources may submit proposals to be considered by the Naval Sea Systems Command.
Updated Bidders Questions
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 57 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bidders Questions
| Date | Question N0. | RFP Reference/Discussion (if necessary) | Question | Answer |
| 6/13/19 | 1 | Page 2 (DD-254 Block 11.c) |
| Page 75 ( RFP Section C 3.2.7) | With regards to receiving and generating classified information or material, please clarify if classified information/material receipt and generation will be done by transmitting electronically, via a network (SIPRNET), or if it will be via hardcopy/electronic media (CD/DVD), with generation being performed on a standalone classified system with no connectivity. If classified information/material receipt and generation will be done by transmitting electronically, via a network (SIPRNET), how long after contract award before the awardee is required to have the capability in place? | PEO IWS 1.0 does not foresee any near term (within the base year) classified information requirements. If required in the following option years, it can be submitted electronically via SIPRNET or hard copies delivery per NAVSEA classified information handling instructions. | |||
| 6/13/19 | 2 | Page 209 (RFP Section L.3.1) | The Bidder’s Question Submittal Form (Attachment J-11) is a Word document. The instructions state, “Offerors shall submit this form in editable Excel file format…” Please clarify if Offerors are supposed to submit questions using the form provided, with each question on a separate page, or if we can submit multiple questions in a single Excel worksheet, as long as we include the required information from this form. | Either format is acceptable. Please ensure that all of the information within J-11 is included.. | |
| 6/13/19 | 3 | Page 213 RFP Section L.2 and Page 218 (RFP Section L.4.2) | Request the CWBS not count toward the Page Limit of Volume II. | The CWBS will not be counted toward the Page Limit of Volume II. | |
| 6/13/19 | 4 | L-209-H009 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018) (Page 205) | Please clarify the statement concerning OCI, which states that an offeror would be disqualified if it supports AEGIS Program (PEO IWS 1.0) SSDS Program (PEO IWS 10.0), Naval Surface Warfare Centers (NSWC) Dahlgren Division, NSWC Crane Division, and Combat Direction Systems Activity (CDSA) Dam Neck, or related laboratories (if applicable), in support of operation of the office or any of its programs. Would this extend to contracts such as Seaport -e, Seaport NxG, or other contract or delivery order even if the support is for something like Training or Software Program for any of the listed commands such as CDSA DN or NSWC Dahlgren and would that preclude that company from being awarded this contract? | Offerors are advised to refer to FAR 9.5 with respect to specific examples of potential and actual OCIs that would preclude an offeror from participating. The Government considers OCIs to be fact specific; offeors are advised to refer to the clause ( L-209-H009) with respect to the responsibilities in identifying and reporting potential and actual OCIs. In particular, OCIs that the Government are most concerned with are those that would provide the offeror with an unfair competitive advantage. | |
| 6/13/19 | 5 | Legend Tab ( Attachment J-3) | Should the offeror make the assumption that the documents listed in Attachment J-13 which show a “N/A” will require development as part of this contract? | If development is required, it will be performed by the Government , not by the offeror. | |
| 6/13/19 | 6 | RFP – CLIN 0400, page 17 |
RFP - Section 3.12, pages 91-99 RFP – Section L.4, Table Labor Mix, page 219 The offeror understands that the cost associated with the delivery of the CDRLs should not be priced separately. The cost of implementation of the ILS program and development of the various ILS requirements called out in Section 3.12 is included in CLINs 0001-0016, 0100, 1001-1016, 1100, 2001-2016, 2100, 3001-3016, 3100, 4001-4016 and 4100. However, the Labor Mix table provided in Section L.4 does not include any labor categories for personnel engaged in performance of ILS tasking, such as provisioners, logisticians, technical writers, instructional technologists, and so forth. Request the Government provide guidance on how the offeror should specify the labor requirements for the ILS program. The cost of implementation of the ILS program and development of the various ILS requirements should not be priced separately and will be treated the same way as CDRLs. Therefore, the labor mix in Section L.4 is not applicable for ILS tasking’s.
| 6/13/19 | 7 | Page 221 ( RFP Section L.6) | When completing Section B should the offeror provide step ladder pricing for CLINs or simply reference the Note/s tables to indicate the corresponding step ladder pricing/unit. | Reference Note C in Section B of the RFP, the offeror shall insert the stepladder pricing in the table for the CLINS. |
| 6/13/19 | 8 | Page 69 ( RFP SOW, 3.1) | SOW par. 3.1 indicates that the GFE/GFP furnished for the contract is identified in Section H. Whilst GFE, etc., is mentioned in some SOW sections (e.g., 3.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.1), and also identified in FAT plans and procedures (extract from 3.3.3 – ‘…other than the items provided by the Government as GFE/GFI/GFP as identified in the FAT plan and procedures (provided with TDP, attachment J-2)…’),. there doesn’t appear to be any list of GFE/GFP in Section H. Please clarify if, in fact, there will be GFE/GFI/GFP included as part of this contract and, if so, will a list of GFE/GFI/GFP be provided as part of the Solicitation? | The GFE List was added in Section H, per Solicitation Amendment 0001, dated 14 May, 2019 |
| 6/13/19 | 9 | RFP SOW Para 3.13.3 | SOW par. 3.13.3 requires a Country of Origin Study for each electronic part, assemblies and subassemblies for each cabinet, as defined in 252.246-7008. 1. Has this study been completed for each electronic part, assembly and subassembly for each cabinet listed in the TDP delivered as GFI for this solicitation? 2. If so, since this is a BTP program, does the Government have this information and, if so, will they provide it? | The government has not completed a Country of Origin Study. If required, the government will fund the prospective contract winner on Engineering Services task to complete this study. |
| 6/13/19 | 10 | RFP Section 3.12.4, page 92 | Attachment J-3 NPS and TE GFI Information List 26FEB2019 does not list any training documentation or material. The RFP excerpt above requires the development of both IMI and PPP based instructor led curriculum. Should the offeror make the assumption that the development of the training packages is a new development effort? | Yes, the development of the training packages shall be a new development effort, which does not require GFI. |
| 6/21/19 | 11 | RFP - Section 3.12.5.4, page 96 |
Attachment J-3 – Row 27, Technical Manual The excerpt above ( to the left on this spreadsheet) from the RFP states that the CCS, ASAN and PS2 TM will be delivered as GFI. However, Row 27 of Attachment J-3 provides a TMNS for all of the equipment included in this contract. Should the offeror make the assumption that: A. The equipment not listed in the RFP excerpt, i.e. ACEGI01, ACEGI02, ALIS, and DiVDS, will require ETM development. B. Since the acronym TM is used both in the RFP excerpt, and in Attachment J-3 cell A27, the offeror should assume that the development effort will be to convert standard Technical Manuals to the ETM format specified in the RFP. C. Although the RFP uses the term “develop” planned tasking for ETMs is actually revision and maintenance of the existing manuals listed on Attachment J-3 – Row 27 Government response to the assumptions:
A. The equipment not listed in the RFP excerpt, i.e. ACEGIO1, ACEGIO2, ALIS and DiVDS will require development of four (4) new ETMs in accordance with the style guide (S0300-A7-AEG-010). These ETMs should be unique for each equipment item.
B. References to the acronym TM in the RFP excerpt and Attachment J-3 should be interpreted as ETM. The development effort is not a TM conversion effort to ETM format.
C. Develop planned tasking for equipment not listed in the RFP excerpt, i.e. ACEGIO1, ACEGIO2, ALIS and DiVDS will require development of four (4) new ETMs in accordance with the style guide (S0300-A7-AEG-010). The GFI ETMs for CCS, ASAN and PS2 may be leveraged as point of departures to develop three (3) new ETMs.
| 6/13/19 | 12 | Section F | Would the government confirm the first unit of a lot is required to be delivered 12 months ARO for a non- FAI cabinet and 14 months ARO for a FAI cabinet? | Yes, the first unit of a lot is required to be delivered 12 months ARO for a non- FAI cabinet and 14 months ARO for a FAI cabinet |
| 6/13/19 | 13 | Section I, FAR 52.230-2, paragraph (d) |
Section K, FAR 52.230-1, paragraph (a)
| Section L.5, Volume III Past Performance, FACTOR 2 – Past Performance, | Prior to 01 July 2018, the Truth in Negotiation Act (TINA) threshold was $750,000. That was subsequently raised to $2,000,000 via FAR 52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards (DEVIATION 2018-O0015) and FAR 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and certification (DEVIATION 2018-O0015. We recommend the government increase the threshold in section I and K to $2,000,000 and incorporate the FAR 52.230-1 and FAR 52.230-2 deviations into the solicitation. Further we request the “Major” subcontract threshold be established at $50,000,000, in lieu of $750,000. This would assist in limiting the workload given the 45 day requirement to submit this proposal | Concur with the incorporation of FAR 52.230-1 and FAR 52.230-2 deviations. Concur with major subcontract threshold increase to 55M in accordance with DFARS 252.209-7009. | |
| 6/13/19 | 14 | Section 3.4.1 Production Readiness Review, Pg.82 |
L.2, Pg.213
| L.4, Pg.219 | Will the government provide an excel version of the current Indentured Bill of Material’s associated with this solicitation? | The government will not provide an excel version of the current Indentured Bill of Material’s associated with this solicitation. Offerors shall be responsible for BOM development. | |||
| 6/13/19 | 15 | Section B page 4 Section H Page 158 | Please correct the discrepancies between Section B Cabinet Drawing Part Numbers and the Part Numbers identified in Section H Clause 5252.245-9109. | Concur, the AECGIO1 drawing number in Section H GFE table should be PN 8563365 & 8563493 . The later drawing number is for tactical equivalent cabinet. The updated RFP will reflect this change. | |
| 6/13/19 | 16 | Section B Pages 6 through 10 | Please confirm if First Articles will be included for CLINS 0009-0016. | The government does not have current First Articles requirements for the tactical equivalent CLINS 0009-0016. However, if this changed the government will utilize CLINS 0017-0024 as needed. | |
| 6/13/19 | 17 | Pg.14, Section B, CLIN Number 0024 | CLIN 0024 Identifies First Article Unit Testing (FAUT) opposed to CLINS 0017 - 0023 which identifies First Article Requirements (FAR). Is CLIN 0024 to be First Article Requirements (the same as CLINS 0017 to 0023)? | Yes, CLIN 0024 is meant to be First Article Requirements (similar to CLINS 0017 to 0023). RFP Amendment has reflected this change. | |
| 6/13/19 | 18 | Page 15, Section B CLIN 0026, Pg. 99, Section 3.13 Engineering Studies (Supplemental And Emergent Work), Subsection 3.13.3 Country of Origin Study | The number of components identified in the first stage of cannot be defined until the study is conducted. To cost the effort to provide the ROM for the replacements cannot be accomplished without the list of components. If the government desires to keep the scope the same, please provide a representative list of components to be able to cost CLIN 0026. However, we recommend limiting the scope of the effort to the first phase of the study to just identify the components. | The government will not provide a list of components at this time. The ROM is not required at the proposal phase and it is not an evaluation factor. If the government decided to exercise this CLIN after contract award, breaking down the scope into phases may be considered. | |
| 6/13/19 | 19 | Pg.19, CLIN 1004 | The part number for CLIN 1004 states the incorrect Part Number. DRS believes it should read 8563367 instead of 856367. PN Conflicts with the TDP which is correct | Concur, 8563367 is the correct part number for CLIN 1004. The RFP Amendment reflects this change. | |
| 6/21/19 | 20 | Pg.73-74, Section 3.2.5 Meetings | What is the minimum number of participants required for the meetings defined in Section 3.0 Subsections 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.5.7, 3.2.5.8, 3.2.5.9? | Updated Response: The appropriate person(s) will be required to attend the following meetings: |
Local Configuration Control Board (LCCB), Engineering Working Group (EWG), Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Meeting, Reliability/Maintainability (R&M) Program Review and Problem Review Board (PRB).
All remaining meetings shall require a minimum of three (3) participants, consisting of Program Manager, Project Engineer and Contracts.
| 6/13/19 | 21 | Pg.73-74, Section 3.2.5 Meetings | What is the duration of the meetings defined in Section 3.0 Subsections 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.5.7, 3.2.5.8, 3.2.5.9? | The "Every two weeks" and "Monthly" meetings are expected to be an hour long. All other meetings are expected to be one full business day. |
| 6/13/19 | 22 | Section 3.4.1 Production Readiness Review, Pg.82 |
L.2, Pg.213
| L.4, Pg.219 | Will the government provide an excel version of the current Indentured Bill of Material’s associated with this solicitation? | The government will not provide an excel version of the current Indentured Bill of Material’s associated with this solicitation. Offerors shall develop the BOM themselves. | |||
| 6/13/19 | 23 | Pg 84, Section 3.6.3 Engineering | Please provide Attachment "X" along with the description of "Attachment X." | This should be attachment J-3 instead of “X”. | |
| 6/13/19 | 24 | Pg 94 | Section 3.12.5.2 appears to be missing. Solicitation skips from 3.12.5.1 to 3.12.5.3. | Will insert a “blank” para 3.12.5.2. Renumbering of paragraphs is not advised in order not to impact the CDRL package paragraph references. | |
| 6/13/19 | 25 | Section B, Page 15 CLIN 0026; Pg. 99, Section C, 3.13.3 Country of Origin Study | As the Country of Original Study is including within the Engineering Services Section C, Subsection 3.13, thereby included in the 10,000 hours, CLINS 0200, 1200, 2200, 3200, and 4200 please remove CLIN 0026. | The government concurs that the Country of Origin Study is a subset of Engineering Services. However, the government prefers to capture this effort separately under CLIN 0026. | |
| 6/13/19 | 26 | Pg 211, L.1.6. PROPOSAL PACKING INSTRUCTIONS | Please confirm if the Table of Contents is counted in the Volume page count. | Concur with the Table of Contents being excluded from page count. | |
| 6/13/19 | 27 | Page 213 Section L, Subsection 2.1 | A recent solicitation (BTP MK82/MK200, Solicitation #N0002419R5111) specifically required "All files submitted to the Government shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016." Please consider allowing Microsoft Office 2016 documents to be compliant for this NPS Solicitation. | Concur with changing Microsoft Office 2010 to Microsoft 2016. RFP will be updated accordingly. | |
| 6/13/19 | 28 | Pg 215, L.2.2. CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX | Please confirm if the Volume Cross Reference is to be included in each volume and excluded from the page count | Concur with the Volume Cross Reference being excluded from page count. | |
| 6/13/19 | 29 | Pg.214, Section L.2.1. PROPOSAL FORMAT | Should the offeror include a list of Figures, and will this be included in the page count? | List of figures is not required and if it is included by the offeror it will be counted towards the page count. | |
| 6/13/19 | 30 | Pg.214, Section L.2.1. PROPOSAL FORMAT | Please confirm that "Index Tabs" are not be to Identified as Intentionally Left Blank" | No, the index tabs shall be used to separate each section. | |
| 6/13/19 | 31 | Pg.214, Section L.2.1. PROPOSAL FORMAT | Section L does not require the proposal response to be numbered to the paragraph level. Would the Navy consider renumbering the solicitation to the paragraph level so the Offeror can be compliant to the cross reference matrices'? If yes, the requirement for the proposal should also be amended to require paragraph numbering. | No | |
| 6/13/19 | 32 | Pg 219, Appendix C | Please confirm if the BOM the offeror included within Appendix C is to be an Indented BOM or a Consolidated BOM. | Offerors shall provide a detailed consolidated BOM. | |
| 6/13/19 | 33 | Page 222 | If the offeror is utilizing forward pricing rates from an FPRA or FPRR is all the indirect rate support listed in paragraphs 2 through 5 still required? | Yes all the indirect rate support listed in paragraphs 2 through 5 are still required. | |
| 6/13/19 | 34 | RFP | Request for a forty-five (45) day extension of the proposal delivery date to 28 July 2019 | Three weeks extension mod was issued on 5/28/2019 | |
| 6/13/19 | 35 | Section B, NOTE E |
Section M.3, TEP Table
| Page 227 of 228 | Would the Government confirm that repairs are not included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)? | Repairs are included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors are required to complete the repair column “M” of Attachment J-4. The RFP Section L.6, item3, will be updated to say FIRM FIXED PRICE INCO SPARES AND REPAIRS. Similarly, Section M.3 table and item 3 will be updated to add “Repairs” | |||
| 6/13/19 | 36 | Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 3.12, Page 95-96 of 228 | Paragraph 3.12.5.2 is missing from Section C of the RFP. That paragraph number is also not used in the “CDRL Data Package’ for any CDRL. It is assumed that the paragraph was omitted and can be marked as “reserved.” Please confirm this was intentionally omitted. | Will insert a “blank” para 3.12.5.2. Renumbering of paragraphs is not advised in order not to impact the CDRL package paragraph references. | |
| 6/13/19 | 37 | Solicitation Section L, Appendix A. Second paragraph, page 219 of 228 | The term “staffing level” in reference to the creation if the IMS implies that the NPS IMS provided with the proposal response will be resource loaded. An IMS provided with a proposal response usually contains information contained in an Integrated Master Plan (IMP), such as events, accomplishments, and criteria. It would also include tasks with accurate durations and linking in order to determine the critical path, as well as ensure that the contractor can realistically meet the customer’s delivery schedule. Resource loading as well as training periods would not be required in order to meet the intent of the IMS. |
1.) Would the Government remove the phrase “staffing level”, thus removing the perceived requirement to provide a resource loaded IMS with the RFP response?
| 2.) Would the Government consider removing the phrase “training periods” from the list of IMS requirements? | The government concurs that resource loading as well as training periods would not be required to be loaded into the IMS. However, Offerors can provide a list (separate from IMS) to demonstrate that they have enough resources and key personnel’s required for the NPS program execution, and they are trained to meet the required skill level. | ||||
| 6/13/19 | 38 | Section C, C-1 Deliverables, Pg 67 of 228 | The scope of CLINs 200 (if exercised, 1200, 2200, 3200, and 4200) includes travel and incidental material, but that same scope is also part of CLIN 0300 (if exercised, 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300). Please clarify where the travel and incidental material scope belongs. If it remains in CLIN 200 (and the related option CLINs), then the costs of these items will be included in the page 65 of 228 Note “F” table of CPFF “Est. Cost/Hour” rates being provided by the contractor. Will the government confirm that travel and incidental material should only be proposed under CLIN 300 (and subsequent related option CLINs 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300 | The government confirms that travel and incidental material should only be proposed under CLIN 300 (and subsequent related option CLINs 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300. | |
| 6/13/19 | 39 | Section B, clause B-231-H001 TRAVEL COSTS (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) |
| Page 59 | Would the Government confirm that PCO approval only applies to the COST CLINs, specifically the ODC and Incidental Material CLINs 300, 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4300? | Yes, PCO approval only applies to the COST CLINs, such as the ODC and Incidental Material CLINs 300, 1300, 2300, 3300, and 4299 | |||
| 6/13/19 | 40 | RFP | Request for a two (2) week extension of the proposal delivery date to 01 July 2019 | Three weeks extension mod was issues on 5/28/2019 | |
| 6/13/19 | 41 | RFP | Request for a 4 week extension of the proposal delivery date to 17 July 2019 | Three weeks extension mod was issues on 5/28/2019 | |
| 6/13/19 | 42 | Pgs 75 through 77 of 228, paragraph 3.2.7.8 through 3.2.7.8.6 | RFP Sections 3.2.7.8 (1-6) Detailed Task, Cybersecurity (All Items) on pages 75-77, 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. 3.2.7.8 (all subsections), pages 75-77.
| Additional Navy guidance on the interpretation and application of the USN Memorandum is anticipated. Accordingly, will NAVSEA remove cybersecurity requirements 3.2.7.8 (all subsections) from the RFP and engage with the base contract awardee about how best to address the USN Memorandum’s intended requirements, after additional guidance is issued by the Navy? | No the Navy is requiring the Contractor to comply with 252.204-7012 with the exception of the five areas specifically called out within the SSP section as well as compliance with the NCIS Sensor. The Contractor is required to comply with all portions of the solicitation if they wish to submit a compliant offer. | |||
| 7/3/19 | 43 | Section L.2.2, Cross Reference Matrix, page 216 of 228 | The RFP requires tracking of the Government solicitation requirements to the Offeror’s proposal. Sections L and M do not align with all the SOW paragraphs. |
Would the Government confirm that the mapping to the SOW paragraphs and CDRLs are for the applicable paragraphs that are also referenced in section L & M and not for the entire SOW?
| For example, SOW section C.3.2 addresses Program Management and Control. Its subsections include requirements for meetings and reviews. There is no Management Volume requirement as part of section L. Section L requires the Offeror’s proposal to be crossed referenced to the “appropriate SOW paragraphs, as applicable”. Would the Government confirm they are not looking for all SOW sections to be mapped to Volume II – Technical? | Offerors are required to comply with all solicitation terms and conditions. The Government does not require all Section C SOW paragraphs and CDRLS to be mapped to offeror's Volume II- Technical proposals. | ||
| 6/21/19 | 44 | Section J, Attachment J-6, page 188 of 228 |
Section L, L219-H001, page 208 of 228
Section L, page 217 of 228 The Contractor is a participant in the DoD test program for comprehensive small business plans and currently has a DCMA approved comprehensive small business subcontracting plan, which meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-9.
| Will the Government add 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) OCT 2014 to Section I of the solicitation? | This clause will be included. | ||||
| 6/13/19 | 45 | Attachment J-4 Rows 132 and 133 | Please confirm part numbers should have been 8563375 for CABINET MODIFICATION, ASAN and 8563376 for CABINET MODIFICATION, CCS | Correct, the part numbers “8563375 for CABINET MODIFICATION, ASAN and 8563376 for CABINET MODIFICATION, CCS” are accurate for the respective modified enclosures. | |
| 6/13/19 | 46 | Pg 75 of 228 paragraph 3.2.7.7 | The term “Sufficient Protection” is not defined in section 3.2.7.7. Since the DFARS 252.204.7012 is already referenced by the RFP, would the Government remove this section from the RFP? | The Government does not concur with this deletion. | |
| 6/13/19 | 47 | Section C, paragraph 3.11 Page 90 of 228 | CLINs 2300, 3300, and 4300 are not applicable under paragraph 3.11. Would the Gov’t please confirm that CLIN 0300 is not an applicable CLIN and that the RFP requires an update to remove it? | Yes, CLIN 0300 is not applicable under paragraph 3.11. The RFP will be updated | |
| 6/13/19 | 48 | Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, Paragraph 3.12, Page 95-96 of 228 | Within Statement of Work (SOW) Section 3.12.5, subsection jump from 3.12.5.1 Provisioning Technical Documentation (PTD)/Supplemental Provisioning Technical Documentation (SPTD) to 3.12.5.3 Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU) Cross Reference List; there is no 3.12.5.2. Please confirm that there is not a subsection missing and that this is merely a typo. | Will insert a “blank” para 3.12.5.2. Renumbering of paragraphs is not advised in order not to impact the CDRL package paragraph references. | |
| 7/3/19 | 49 | Technical Data Package (TDP) | See Sheet 2, There are 19 Missing drawings from the TDP. Asking for us to Provide the drawings | Please refer to the missing DWGS tab in this Excel Spreadhseet. | |
| 6/21/19 | 50 | Section I, page 147 of 228 | As this solicitation is competitive and there is adequate competition, we request the removal of FAR Clause 52.215-10 and FAR 52.215-12. FAR 52.215-10 is only appropriate when contracting by negotiation (see FAR 15.408 (b), price reduction for defective certified cost or pricing data). When FAR 52.215-10 is deleted, it is also appropriate to delete FAR 52.215-12 (see FAR 15.408(d) subcontractor certified cost or pricing data) | These clauses will remain in RFP in accordance with FAR 15.002. | |
| 6/13/19 | 51 | Section M.3, item “1)” and item “3)” |
| Pages 227 and 228, of 228 | Please confirm that “stepladder line items” are the same as CLINs. | Yes, the step ladder refers to the Qty breakdown, the CLINS are the " step ladder items" to be priced across the step ladder. | |||
| 6/13/19 | 52 | Section I, page 151 of 228 | The Alternate II version of DFARS 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data, includes the potential for damages in the case of breach of the warranty. However, the base technical data for this effort was provided/created by the government. Contractors work product and delivery of technical data may likely build upon the government provided source documents (e.g. TDP, GFE/GFI, etc.) that the contractor must rely on to conform to the specifications and other requirements of the contract. As such, we request the deletion of the clause as there should be no need for greater protection or period of liability than provided by the inspection and warranty clauses prescribed in FAR Part 46. Should the Government not delete the clause, we request the replacement of the Alternate II version of DFARS 252.246-7001 with the standard DFARS 252.246-7001. | Amended RFP includes Original 252.246-7001 | |
| 6/21/19 | 53 | Page 80, SOW Section C Subsection 3.3.2; Government Furnished Technical Data Package (TDP) | Please confirm the MCE PN type should be 7420700-107 and not 7420700-15X series part numbers as per the Technical Data Package (TDP). | The respective CABINET MODIFICATION DWGS (8563376, 8563375, 8563374, 8563372, 8563373, and 8563377) call out SOURCE CONTROL DWG 8430955 CABINET, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT – CITADEL ENCLOSURE, which points to 7420700-15X Type MCE's. The contractor shall bid to what is called out in the CABINET MODIFICATION DWGS. | |
| 6/13/19 | 54 | Attachment J-4 | Please confirm the MCE Modified top level cabinets for ASAN (PN 8563375) and CCS (PN 8563376) are to be included in the spares list pricing not the base cabinet Part Numbers ASAN (PN 7420700-153) and CCS (PN 7420700-51). | J-4 Attachment has been updated. | |
| 7/3/19 | 55 | Page 78, Section C, 3.3, MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLY, AND TEST | Please provide the full text of the NAVSEA Clauses 5252.245-9109 Government-Furnished Property (Incorporation), 5252.245-9115 Rent-Free Use Of Government Property And 5252.245-9108 Government-Furnished Property (Performance). | 5252.245-9109 was incorporated with Amendment 0001. 252.245-9115 is not applicable. 5252.245-9108 will not be added as it does not apply to this Solicitation. | |
| 6/12/19 | 56 | Page 214 | Given the large number of SOW topics that need to be addressed in regards to the Section L topics for Factor 1 of the Technical Volume, can the page count limit be increased from 50 to 90 pages? | Concur. The RFP has been updated to reflect the page count change. | |
| 7/23/19 | 57 | Technical Data Package(TDP) | The items listed in Attachment A were not able to be located within the TDP. Please provide the missing documents. | **Updated**Please refer to the missing DWGS tab in this Excel Spreadsheet. | |
| 6/12/19 | 58 | Factory Acceptance Test Procedure, Section A2, ACEGIO Test Equipment | Drawings and /or Parts lists for these fixtures were not identified within the contents of the TDP. Is all test hardware called out in the corresponding FAT (3071593-Appendix A2 for ACEGIO, 3071598-Appendix 2 for ALIS, and 3071583 - Appendix 2 for DiVDS) please provide drawings and/or parts lists. | Yes. The Government will change the wording in section C to read “As identified in the FAT plan and procedures (provided with TDP, attachment J-2) or suitable alternatives, subject to Government approval. Specifically, bidders will be required to develop and document the Test Plan and Procedures for the following Conversion Group Tests in Section 4.3.7 of 3071593 MOD1 ACEGIO FAT Plan: VLP, DAP, GDP, BMS, and ATP. As well as, develop and document the necessary Test Fixtures indicated in Section A2.3 of the same document and submit for NSWC, Dahlgren Division Design Agent Approval and Acceptance for incorporation into MOD1 source TDP. | |
| 6/21/19 | 59 | Technical Data Package(TDP) DWG 8563533 / 8479867 | The parts list for 8563533 calls out PN: 8479867 which is a Network Interface Card (NIC); however, the drawing for 8479867 is for a metal bracket. Please provide appropriate part number for the NIC. | The correct NIC card drawing number is 8479971. The parts list in drawing 8563533 will be updated post award. The offeror has all the information needed to bid to these drawings. | |
| 6/21/19 | 60 | Technical Data Package (TDP) DWG 8479880 | Please provide a PDF version of DWG 8479880 (where used: 8563493). | The missing drawing 8479880 is actually an incorrect drawing number for the Where used DWG it should be: 8563434 (EDGE SWITCH NEXUS 93180). The correct/updated drawing will be provided post award. The offeror has all the information needed to bid to these drawings. | |
| 7/23/19 | 61 | Technical Data Package (TDP) DWG 8480103 | Please provide a PDF version of DWG 8480103 (where used: 8563498). | *** UPDATED The missing drawing 8480103 is actually an incorrect drawing number for the Where used DWG it should be: 8751032-1 (ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS ASSEMBLY-VIDEO ENCODER). The correct/updated drawing will be provided post award. The offeror has all the information needed to bid to these drawings. | |
| 6/13/19 | 62 | Page 84, Sections 3.6.1 Engineering Working Group (EWG) and Local Configuration Control Boards (LCCBs) & 3.6.3 Engineering Changes. | Section 3.6.1 states ECP's are CDRL A021 and section 3.6.3 states ECP's are CDRL A022. Please correct the discrepancy in the ECP CDRL numbers between section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3. | Amended RFP will reflect this change. | |
| 6/21/19 | 63 | Page 60 Section B, Note E | Offeror's are required to submit a Firm-Fixed Unit Price for the INCO, Spares & Repair's CLINS. As a forecast is not available for INCO, Spares and Repairs, industry will not be able to work with supplier to plan appropriately. In order to prevent financial burden on the contractor will the Government provide INCO, Spares and repairs forecasting data or remove Note E from the Solicitation? | Note E will not be removed. A forecast will not be provided, as sparing is not planned to be a frequent requirement. Spares are to be priced using the stepladder quantity breaks in accordance with attachment J-4. | |
| 8/13/19 | 64 | Technical Data Package (TDP) Part Numbers 20511800-1, DACE MODULE; 20511800-2, DACE MODULE; 20511803-2, IOD SYSTEM MONITOR, 20511852-1, SLOT BYPASS, DOUBLE WIDE | Lockheed Martin, the incumbent for the ACEGIO 1& 2, ALIS, and DiVDS units is a directed source for the following (4) part numbers: 20511800-1, DACE MODULE; 20511800-2, DACE MODULE; 20511803-2, IOD SYSTEM MONITOR, 20511852-1, SLOT BYPASS, DOUBLE WIDE. In order to avoid an unfair advantage, please provide these four part numbers as GFE. | These assembly will be provided as GFE, the table in Section H has been updated to reflect this change. | |
| 8/13/19 | 65 | Technical Data Package | Please provide a complete drawing package for part numbers for ACEGIO 1 and 2 cabinets: 20523920-501, CCA NTDS-A/B MOTHER; 20523916-505, CCA,MEZZANINE MODULE; and 20523924-502, NTDS IO DUPLEXER. If a drawing package is not available or drawings are source directed, a possible solution would be to provide these (3) part numbers as GFE. If GFE is not a viable option and if competitors that are source directed are not required to submit cost and pricing details, how will the government ensure a level playing field? (Please see the tab entitled "NPS Drawing Issues" that provides details of missing drawings.) | 20523920-501, CCA NTDS-A/B MOTHER and 20523916-505, CCA,MEZZANINE MODULE are part of assembly 20535800-501 and will be provided as GFE, the table in Section H has been updated to reflect this change. Assembly 20523924-502 will be provided as GFE, the table in Section H has been updated. Please see other tabs: Missing DWGS tab, Table for Question 111, and Response to Question 115 for more details on the GFE and other sources of supply. | |
| 6/13/19 | 66 | Section F, page 150 of 228 | This clause is not mandatory for inclusion in contracts. It is also not clear as to why the US Government, or other US Government Agencies would need a license to practice patented inventions. The contractor is being requested to build and deliver the equipment and if necessary provide spares and repairs. Please delete. If not, please explain why the Government believes this clause is required. Does the government intend to build the items being contracted? | Amended RFP will reflect this clause being removed | |
| 6/21/19 | 67 | Section F, page 128 of 228 | This clause is not mandatory for inclusion in contracts and per FAR 42.1305(b)(1) should only be inserted when contracting by negotiation. This is a competition and not a negotiation, therefore it would not be appropriate and should be deleted in its entirety. |
| If the government insists on inclusion, the alternate 1 version should be made applicable only to the cost reimbursement CLIN’s not the FFP CLIN’s. If included for Cost reimbursement CLIN’s, please reduce the standby period from 90 to 60 days. | This clause will remain as is. | |||
| 6/13/19 | 68 | Section I, page 151 of 228 | This requirement is not mandatory clause and stretches out the contract performance period by two years after acceptance of all items which increases cost of contract administration. Per DFARS 227.7103-8 (a), the clause is appropriate when it is in the Government's interests to defer the delivery of technical data. It also states that the contract must specify which technical data is subject to deferred delivery. As a competitive effort, all firm requirements have been established and no notice of deferred delivery of technical data has been specified. If the government intends to defer delivery of technical data, please identify which technical data will be deferred. Further, as this is an LPTA where the government is seeking the lowest price and the government has provided the source documents (e.g. TDP, GFE/GFI, etc.), we request that the clause be deleted. The contractor will be updating the TDP for changes so the Government will be getting the technical data during the course of the contract. |
Should the government not delete the provision, we request the addition of the following special provision:
Special Clause: Rights in open source software and open source software documentation; authorization and consent.
(a) The contractor and its subcontractors may procure and incorporate into the products delivered under this contract open source software and open source software documentation. The Government shall have only the rights specified in the license under which the Government or its contractor at any tier licensed the open source software or open source software documentation.
| (b) Pursuant to 28 USC 1498(b), the Government authorizes and consents to all use, reproduction, distribution, performance, display, modification or creation of derivative works of such open source software or open source software documentation in performance of this contract or any subcontract at any tier. | Amended RFP will reflect this clause being removed | |||
| 6/13/19 | 69 | Section I, page 151 of 228 | This requirement is not mandatory clause and stretches out the contract performance period by three (3) years after acceptance of all items which increases cost of contract administration. Per DFARS 227.7103-8 (b), the clause is appropriate when a firm requirement for a particular data item(s) has not been established prior to contract award but there is a potential need for the data. As a competitive effort, all firm requirements have been established. If not, please identify the purpose for inserting this provision. Lastly, as this is an LPTA where the government is seeking the lowest price and the government has provided the source documents (e.g. TDP, GFE/GFI, etc.), we request that the clause be deleted. Further, during the course of the contract, the contractor will be submitting updates to the technical data. |
Should the government not delete the provision as requested, we request the addition of the following special provision:
Special Clause: Rights in open source software and open source software documentation; authorization and consent.
(a) The contractor and its subcontractors may procure and incorporate into the products delivered under this contract open source software and open source software documentation. The Government shall have only the rights specified in the license under which the Government or its contractor at any tier licensed the open source software or open source software documentation.
(b) Pursuant to 28 USC 1498(b), the Government authorizes and consents to all use, reproduction, distribution, performance, display, modification or creation of derivative works of such open source software or open source software documentation in performance of this contract or any subcontract at any tier.
| No. Amended RFP will include this clause. Some data has not been established prior to contract award, such as, TDP. | ||
| 6/21/19 | 70 | Section M.3, item “1)” |
| Pages 227 and 228, of 228 | Except for “Qty 25+”, the stepladder ranges referenced in this section of the RFP contain a defined minimum and maximum limit (e.g.: “Qty 2-3” where quantity 2 is the minimum and quantity 3 is the maximum). For “Qty 25+”, quantity 25 is understood to be the minimum, but please provide an upper bound such that the stepladder range is definite for TEP evaluation. (Please note that the contractor is not requesting a change to the stepladder range in Section B, Note C that would limit the Government’s ability to order quantities above a certain number.) | The randomly selected quantity to determine the amount to be included, is for evaluation purposes only or a level playing field. Providing an upper limit will not change the random quantities selected. | |||
| 6/21/19 | 71 | Appendix B, page 219 of 228 | Can the Government please provide the expected volume of delivered systems and components to be stored during an average month? | The maximum throughput is up to forty (40) units per month. The contractor should plan be able to store and manage the maximum throughput at any given month. | |
| 6/13/19 | 72 | Section I, page 151 of 228 | The Alternate II version of DFARS 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data, includes the potential for damages in the case of breach of the warranty. However, the base technical data for this effort was provided/created by the government. Contractors work product and delivery of technical data may likely build upon the government provided source documents (e.g. TDP, GFE/GFI, etc.) that the contractor must rely on to conform to the specifications and other requirements of the contract. As such, we request the deletion of the clause as there should be no need for greater protection or period of liability than provided by the inspection and warranty clauses prescribed in FAR Part 46. Should the Government not delete the clause, we request the replacement of the Alternate II version of DFARS 252.246-7001 with the standard DFARS 252.246-7001. | Added 252.246-7001 | |
| 6/13/19 | 73 | Section M.3, item “1)” and item “3)” |
| Pages 227 and 228, of 228 | Please confirm that “stepladder line items” are the same as CLINs. | Yes, the step ladder refers to the Qty breakdown, the CLINS are the " step ladder items" to be priced across the step ladder. | |||
| 6/21/19 | 74 | Section I, page 147 of 228 | As this solicitation is competitive and there is adequate competition, we request the removal of FAR Clause 52.215-10 and FAR 52.215-12. FAR 52.215-10 is only appropriate when contracting by negotiation (see FAR 15.408 (b), price reduction for defective certified cost or pricing data). When FAR 52.215-10 is deleted, it is also appropriate to delete FAR 52.215-12 (see FAR 15.408(d) subcontractor certified cost or pricing data) | These clauses will remain in RFP in accordance with FAR 15.002. | |
| 6/13/19 | 75 | Section I, page 150 of 228 | We request the government delete FAR Clause 52.243-6 Change Order Accounting as this is not a mandatory clause. Further, the implementing instructions under FAR 43.205(f) directs that it should only be in solicitations for supply and R&D contracts of significant technical complexity, if numerous changes are anticipated. As a fixed price build to print LPTA solicitation were a majority of the product consists of COTS products, we do not believe the scope of the contract is of significant technical complexity. Further, we would not anticipate numerous changes under a build to print procurement. Lastly, due to this solicitation being awarded upon lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA), we request to remove this clause to eliminate additional administrative costs that can be avoided. | Amended RFP will reflect this clause being removed | |
| 6/21/19 | 76 | • Paragraph 3.12.4 Training |
• Paragraph 3.12.4.1 Training Conferences and In-Process Reviews
| • Paragraph3.12.4.3 Training Delivery | Naval Education & Training Command (NETC) has directed all AIM I development sunset in CY19 in support of transition to Content Planning Module (CPM) Learning Object Module (LOM), i.e., CPM-LOM or to Microsoft Dynamics. | ||
| The Contractor recommends that the Government replace “AIM I” references in paragraphs 3.12.4, 3.12.4.1, and 3.12.4.3 with “CPM-LOM” or “MS Dynamics” per the NETC development tool transition schedule. | Government concurs with the recommended change to replace "AIM I" RFP references with "CPM-LOM". | ||
| 7/3/19 | 77 | Section C, page 77 and 78 of 228 |
| CDRL Package, CDRL A010, Manhour Estimate, Technical Cost Proposals | SOW 3.2.11 requires the contractor to submit proposals, ROM’s and Technical Instructions under all CLIN’s, some of which are Firm Fixed Price. We request that the specific CLIN(s) for this effort be applicable only to the CPFF Engineering Services CLIN(s) 200, 1200, 2200, 3200 and 4200 as it is not discretely defined and extremely difficult to estimate/Price/forecast the number, size and complexity of future proposals, ROM’s and TI’s which may be requested by the contracting officer over the course of the contract. TI’s are typically performed under the engineering services CLIN’s. CDRL A010 – Requires the submission of Manhour Estimate, Technical Cost Proposals. Block A of this CDRL points to CLIN 400 which is the NSP CDRL delivery. Please change the CLIN reference to Engineering Services CLIN(s) 200, 1200, 2200, 3200 and 4200. | SOW 3.2.11 has been changed from "(Applicable to all CLINs) to (Applicable to CLIN(s) 0100, 0200, 0300, 1100, 1200, 1300, 2100, 2200, 2300, 3100, 3200, 3300, 4100, 4200, 4300 and 5000)". Additionally, the callout of CLIN 0400 in Block A of the CDRLs remains unchanged as it is the Data CLIN for all of the CDRLs in the SOW. | |
| 6/13/19 | 78 | Section C, paragraph 3.2.4 |
Pages 73 of 228
Section C, paragraph 3.2.5.1
| Pages 74 of 228 | Please confirm that cost data required in section C, paragraph 3.2.5.1 statement is only for non-FFP CLINs to ensure that the requirement is consistent with the requirement of paragraph 3.2.4. Please add that all non-FFP CLINs to paragraph 3.2.5.1 as follows: The current program status report shall contain the following main sections: Summary, Accomplishments, Current Status, Problem Areas, Risks and Mitigations, non-FFP CLIN Cost, Schedule Data, and Future Plans. | Bi-weekly PMR meetings are not the same thing as cost reporting for non-FFP CLINS. Bi-weekly meetings apply to more than non-FFP CLINS. | |
| 6/13/19 | 79 | SOW 3.5, SPARES /INCO, page 83 and 84 of 228 |
SOW 3.5.1 Repairs and Warranty Support, page 84 of 228
5252.245-9109 Government Furnished Property, page 2 and 3 of 3
| Attachment J-4 NPS LRU Spares/Repairs | Amendment 0001 provided a list of GFP that would be provided to the contractor. The table of GFP identifies with two (**) and three (***) asterisk the life of type buys for DMS items which will be provided to the contractor for performance of specific CLINs but those CLIN’s do not include the CLIN’s associated with Spares, Repairs and Warranty support that may be ordered by the government (reference SOW 3.5 and 3.5.1 and Attachment J-4). In order to build the Spares, provide repairs and warranty support, GFP representing life time buys will also need to be provided to the contractor for those items that require a life time buy part. Please confirm that the Government will provide the necessary lifetime buy GFP when it is required to build spares, or support spares and provide warranty support. Please also update SOW 3.5 and 3.5.1 to identify that lifetime buy GFP will be provided as was done in paragraph 3.3: “The Government will provide the GFI (Attachment J-3) and the GFP listed in Section H, 5252.245-9109 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY (INCORPORATION), 5252.245-9115 RENT-FREE USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and 5252.245-9108 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY (PERFORMANCE). | The contractor will not be responsible for repairs or warranties of GFP including FP that consists of life of type buys/DMS equipment) unless funded to do so through Engineering Services. | |
| 6/21/19 | 80 | Section C, page 102 of 228 |
Section I, page 152 of 228 FAR 9.308-1 (a)(3) guidance permits the contracting officer to insert FAR 52.209-3, Alternate II (Sept 1989) where it is necessary to authorize the contractor to purchase material or to commence production before first article approval. If the Government is not going to wait for completion and approval of first article deliveries before making award of the production units, then we request the Alternate II version of FAR 52.209-3 be added to the contract.
| Request the government also establish, via special provision referring to the above noted clauses, a 15 calendar day maximum time frame to obtain formal government approval after conducting first article test. | Clause to be added. The maximum time frame to obtain formal government approval will be determined after contract award. | ||||
| 6/21/19 | 81 | Section B, Page 11 to 14 of 228, CLIN’s 0017 through 0024 | CLIN’s 0017 through 0024 identify first article requirements and provides a description but not the applicable drawing number. Please add the applicable drawing number to CLINs 0017 through 0024 to be consistent with the other CLINs. | CLINs 0017-0024 do not include physical hardware delivery. They are reports. | |
| 6/13/19 | 82 | Section I, page 151 of 228 | DFARS Clause 252.227-7039 does not apply to large business contractors. Please delete or commit to deleting should a large business win the competition. For large businesses, replace with clause 252.227-7038 | Concur, the updated RFP will remove DFARS 252.227-7039 | |
| 6/21/19 | 83 | Section C, page 81 & 82 of 228 article 3.4, and 3.4.2 | 3.4 Contractor Production Qualification. – The solicitation identifies that system requirements must be “fully” met in the final production configuration and that production capability demonstrates a “Satisfactory” basis for proceeding into Low-Rate Initial Production and/or full-Rate Production. It is not clear how “fully” met is achieved or what is “satisfactory” basis for proceeding into LRIP. Request discrete language with respect to what constitutes successful qualification. Recommend the following revision: “…Successful qualification shall be satisfied when the systems requirements are built per the applicable drawing is predicated on the Government’s determination that the system requirements are fully met in the its final production configuration, and that production capability demonstrates a satisfactory basis production capability as described in the Production Readiness Review (SOW 3.4.1) for proceeding into Low-Rate Initial Production and/or Full-Rate Production…” |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .