MMM_Q&A_FBO_Posting.pdf

Page # Section/Para. Question Government Response / Action

105 Section L 1.5 Is the requested IMS included in the Volume I page count or can it be attached as an unlimited appendix?

The IMS is added to Appendix Documents table in Section L 1.5 with no page limit.

122 Section L Clauses An appendix is required for Software Development and CMMI Experience but the requirement callout as HQ L-2-0017 is not located in the RFP

Add HQ provision

116 Section L 2.3.2 In the table “Item to be filled in by Offeror” in the row for RFP Section J, should it say, “All Section J Attachments” instead of “Section L”?

Corrected error

N/A N/A Section J Attachments completed by the Offeror are required in both Volume I and Volume III. Is that correct?

Yes, no change to the solicitation

68 Section F

Until the Government identifies the quantity of OPN MMMs to be procured in any given year, offerors will be unable to establish delivery timelines for each of the 05XX series of production CLINs. Would the Government consider leaving the delivery dates as “To be Filled in upon Option Award” for these CLINs

Added paragraph in Section F that delivery time for 500 series is 18 months after option exercise with each additional system exercised at the same time with an additional 2 month delivery timeline.

32 Section C 6.1.3 Is it the Nav’s intention to invoke full EVMS requirements per ANSI/EIA- 748 and the IPMR on the FFP CLINs?

Removed excess requirements.

5 - 17 Section B For the referenced CLINs in section B prices are asked for a quantity of 1 however these CLINs may be exercised in different years and with unknown other CLINs. Should these CLINs reference the tables in Notes E and F?

Applicable note is listed in description of each CLIN to see pricing table Note. Added line in description box of CLIN to input prices in relevant Note.

109 Section L 2.1.2.1

A significant subcontractor is defined in paragraph a of section 2.1.2.1 as a supplier whose production efforts exceed $1 million per production year.

With undefined quantities per year, is it correct to assume that with a maximum buy of 21 systems this calculation may be based on the average of 21 systems over the 5 production years or 4.2 systems/year?

Revised significant contractor definition to 20% of production costs for base award (CLINs 0003 and 0004) and/or whose LOE effort is 10% or higher of labor hours

61 Section E Clause HQ E-2-0017 is incorporated by reference but the clause is not provided elsewhere

Will make as full text.

105 Section L 1.5 Would a SOW and SPS Compliance Matrix, including cross-references to the proposal, qualify as a “Cross Reference Matrix” that would not count against the Technical/Management Volume page count limit?

Added SOW and SPS Compliance Matrix to appendix table.

105 Section L 1.5.1 A sans-serif font, such as Arial, is generally much more readable in small sizes (e.g. 8 pt.) on graphics than Times New Roman. May we use Arial font for graphics?

Added the allowance of arial font on graphs/charts/pictures.

110 Section L 2.1.3

There is a discrepancy in the timeline instructions between contracts with CPARS versus contract for which CPARS are not available. Are the instructions for programs with CPARS (“during the past three (3) years”) intentionally different from the instructions for programs without CPARS (“in the past five (5) years”)?

Changed the first paragraph to say 5 years to match.

The instructions state: “Each proposal shall include no more than a total of three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires, one (1) per contract identified.”

The instructions further state: “The Offeror shall instruct their significant subcontractors to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire if CPARs are not available for those subcontractors. Significant subcontractors, as defined in paragraph 2.1.2.1 above, shall also submit three (3) past performance references for work performed within the past five (5) years, if available.

Each past performance reference should not exceed two (2) pages per reference, for a total of six (6) pages per subcontractor Offeror.” Does the Navy want the combined Prime Contractor and Subcontractor input limited to 3 total programs and 6 total reference pages? Or are the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor requirements cumulative?

Instructions on page 105 limit Appendix page count for Past Performance Questionnaires to “3 Responses, 3 pages each (9 pages total)”. This instruction conflicts with those provided in section 2.1.3 (3 response of 3 pages each for the offeror and 3 responses of 3 pages each for any significant subcontractors). Please clarify.

The JS-2 form refers to definitions on pages 4 and 5 of the form. The definitions are missing.

Instructions provided in section L paragraph 2.1.3 state: “Offerors shall fill in page 1 and 2 of the Past Performance Questionnaire for each customer and include as part of their proposal.” However, pages 1 and 2 of form JS-2 contain the actual evaluation factors that are to be completed by the evaluator.

N/A N/A If this is build to print will the current acceptance procedures be provided as the baseline?

This is not build to print. Performance specifications are provided. The drawings ensure all critical phyysical interfaces are maintained.

Procedures will not be provided.

N/A N/A If this is build to print will the current SRVM be provided as the baseline?

This is not build to print. Performance specifications are provided. The existing SRVM will not be provided.

Paragraphs have been rewritten to address inconsistencies, errors, and instructions. The JS-2 Attachment has been updated to include the definitions. See revised paragraphs in amended RFP.

MMM Solicitation N00024-19-R-6269

Section L 2.1.3

Attachment JS-2

N/A N/A Will the government provide baseline test reports for each sub system and system level FAT (Factory Acceptance Test)?

The Government will not be providing baseline test reports for each sub system and system level Factor Acceptance Test. The existing reports and any existing deviations are not applicable. The successful Offeror will be expected to provide test reports documenting how well they meet the performance specifications. And, if necessary, deviations can be submitted to the Governmnet for consideration. There are no guarantees any past deviations would be accepted going forward.

N/A N/A If this is build to print and the same suppliers of parts are used does the government expect the first unit to undergo EQT (Qualification Test) and FAAT (First Article Acceptance Test)?

This is not build to print. Performance specifications are provided. EQT is expected due to a potential new vendor and/or obsoloscence changes.

N/A N/A

Will the GFI items; 2) Technical Data Package: MMM production drawings document number 94117-A80371-01 3) AN/BLQ-10(V) Security Class Guide document number SCG S5513.8 - (69.4) 4) PMS435 Configuration Management Plan document number PMS435-IEW-CMP-12-1 (rev 3) be provided?

The SCG (S5513.8C 08-69.4-AN-BLQ10(V) Security Classification Guide.pdf) and the CMP (Final PMS435-ESM-CMP-12-1) are located in the TDL. 94117-A80371-01 (BAE038 Drawings TDP A80371-01 Rev A.zip) is in the TDL.

N/A N/A What does the MMM Modernization System consist of? Is there a SOW description?

Note E in Section B provides high level overview of the end unit items that make up an MMM modernization unit. The performance specifications provides additional details fo the desired performance of the MMM system and provdies additional info on the end units. The SOW provides the expectations for technical reviews, test plans, test procedures, test reports, and CDRLs expected.

Cover Page

Block 9 Is the Gov giving any thought about the current due date?

Proposal deadline adjustment is being considered and will be addressed when the amended RFP is posted to FBO.