N00024-20-R-5500 HPS QAs 2020-06-05.pdf

PDF 219 KB Posted

Attached to
FY21-25 AN/SPY-6 Radar Hardware Production and Sustainment
Solicitation number
N00024-20-R-5500
Issued by

About this file

This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for the AN/SPY-6 Radar Hardware Production and Sustainment contract from the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command. The solicitation seeks proposals for the production and sustainment of AN/SPY-6 radar hardware from fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2025. Key details include that offerors must request a copy of the technical data package and government furnished information attachments by May 20th in order to submit a proposal, and must resubmit terms of use agreements even if previously submitted under a request for information or draft solicitation. Historical repair figures are provided as an example for planning purposes only. Clarification is provided that destinations for deliverables will not be shipboard, and will include both domestic and overseas military facilities.

View the file

Other files

Show all 17

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

Question Number:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source: Question: Govt Response:

1 TDP Critical Item Specification, B4980655 Does the Government intend on providing additional data beyond the Critical Item Specification related to the Transmit/Receive RF Head (i.e. bill of materials, schematic, mechanical drawings, MMIC masks, etc.) ? If so, please define what data and when the data be provided?

The Government has provided interface and assembly drawings that give the mechanical dimensions of the RF head, connector locations, etc. Also provided is a parts list of what is needed to attach the RF Head to the TRIMM.

The Government does not have schematic or drawing information to provide on anything inside the RF Head itself. The Government does not have MMIC masks.

2 TDP Critical Item Specification, B4980655 Will the Government provide the Transmit/Receive RF Head GFE for the first year of production in quantities sufficient for production while development and qualification of this item is completed? The Government will not be providing RF Heads as GFE.

3 RFP Page 9, Section B, CLIN 0017; Paragraph 3.3.1.1, Pages 74-76

Engineering and Production Support changed to include wording stating "The proposal NTE is $14M." If the estimated value of the CLIN 0017 exceeds $14M will the Government increase the NTE value of CLIN 0017 in the Challenger Contract? Is the $14M NTE for proposal evaluation criteria only?

The $14M NTE is the maximum value for CLIN 0017. However, this does not prohibit offerors from proposing a value less than $14M for CLIN 0017.

RFP Page 159 - Section L 2.7.1 Tech Volume - Tab A

This section defines the Program Protection Program as provided by Attached J-17. The GFI provided does not contain that Attachment.

When will the Government provide this document as it does not allow development of a compliant response without this document?

The Government posted all classified J-Attachments to the bidder's library space in the "J-Attachments" folder.

RFP Page 71 - Section C 3.2.1.1 Production

The RFP states, "The Contractor shall produce Installation and Checkout Kits that include all necessary tools, connectors, and other materials for installation". In the GFI TDP, is there a Bill Of Material that defines the items that are to be provided as part of this item?

Are INCO kits required with each unit delivery?

INCO (or "IKEE") kits are delivered with every unit. AMDR and EASR Variant Lists have been posted to the bidder's library under Other TDP Items > Install Kit Lists.

RFP Page 100, Section EE-246-H013

The RFP states, "Inspection and acceptance of all data shall be as specified on the attached Contract Data Requirements List(s), DD Form 1423". Please provide the criteria for CLINs listed as acceptance at destination? What is the maximum time the Government will require to accept these CLINs?

Acceptance instructions are found in Section E, page 99. Additional delivery instructions are found in Section C.

RFP Section L Page 153 & 156

Paragraph 2.1, Proposal Format and Delivery for Volume 1A has content of Cover Letter, TOC, Glossary, etc are included in 300 page count limits, where paragraph 2.3 cites these are not included in page count. Can the Government please clarify?

The page count exceptions listed in Section L, 2.3, apply to all proposal volumes.

8 a. Questions and Answers dated 2 April

b. Draft RFP Section B

c. Draft RFP Section C

d. Draft RFP Section L Tab G

a. Questions 102 and 103 b/ Draft RFP pages 9-11 Section B Sustainment CLINs

c. Draft RFP page 78 Section C 3.4 and page 82

3.4.3 Repair Management

d. Draft RFP page 160 Tab G paragraph 6

Both of the questions (102 and 103) were requesting information in regards to understanding what quantity of repairs will be required under the contract and were asking if J-26 was going to provide an indication of the anticipated repair quantities.

Since CLINs xx20-xx23 include both the acquisition of spare items per Note B and repairs per Sections C 3.4 and C3.4.3 under FFP CLINs, industry needs to understand the quantity of repairs to include in the step ladder pricing for each ordering year.

However, we recommend the Government establish separate T&M CLINs for the repair actions to separate the pricing of spares acquisition from spares repair activities to include the operation of the depot. We further recommend that the Government establish maximum number of units to be repaired for each option year to allow for consistent pricing and evaluation of the anticipated repair costs.

CLINs xx20-xx23 are established with stepladder quantities for resupplying Requisitions to the fleet, counted by number of RMA LRUs sent out "A" condition (ready-to-ship). The solicitation allows Offerors to assume quantities of repairs versus replace to fulfill the Requisition need up to the Max Quantities in Table B.2.

9 RFP - Exhibit A CDRLs CDRL A005 TDP Option Selection Worksheet The CDRL A005 TDP Option Selection Worksheet posted to the HP&S Bidders Library on 17 May 2020 references a "Continuation Sheet" that was not provided with the document (see boxes 2, 4, 7 and 11). Please provide the referenced Continuation Sheet;

Offeror(s) require this information to appropriately bid this scope.

The Continuation Sheet is available on the Bidder's Library.

10 RFP - Attachment J-17 Attachment J-17 - AMDR Program Protection Plan (PPP), Tailored Contract Version (classified) Pg. 54, SOW Section 3.1.3

Attachment J-17 includes five (5) appendices that have not been provided (a SCG, Counterintelligence Support Plan, Criticality Analyses, Anti Tamper Plan, and Cyber Security Strategy). Please provide these appendices to enable Offeror(s) to appropriately bid the scope required to generate and execute a Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPIP) under SOW Section 3.1.3.

The PPP (Tailored Contract Version) is provided with the SCG on the classified bidder’s library in “J-Attachments”. The five Attachment J-17 appendices are not requirement in order to generate and execute a Program Protection Implementation Plan under this contract. However, the Anti Tamper SCG is provided for reference (Other TDP GFI > AT SCG (FOUO)) within the unclassified bidder's library.

11 RFP - Exhibit A CDRLs CDRL A005 TDP Option Selection Worksheet The CDRL A005 TDP Option Selection Worksheet.pdf contains a single page numbered 56 of 151. The contents of that page are a duplicate of the Block 9 and 14 remarks provided in the CDRL A005 TDP_03292020_Approved.pdf file. Please provide the full TDP Option Selection Worksheet; Offeror(s) require this information to appropriately bid this scope.

The bidder's library has been updated to include the TDP Option Selection Worksheet.

12 RFP Pg. 64, SOW Section C.3.1.11 and CDRL A044 SOW Section 3.1.11 provides that "[t]he Leader shall coordinate and host a bi-monthly FERB." However, the Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report (FACAR) CDRL A044 DD Form 1423 requires monthly delivery ("[s]ubsequent submittals monthly; 15 CDs prior to each Failure Evaluation Review Board (FERB) or after the end of the calendar month, whichever is sooner"). Recommend the CDRL A044 delivery cadence by revised to bi-monthly to align with the FERBs. This will provide the Government significant cost savings while still ensuring the Government receives the required information in advance of FERBs.

The Government appreciates the feedback, however the delivery requirement remain unchanged.

13 RFP Pg. 80, SOW Sections C.3.4.1.2 and C.3.4.1.3 SOW Sections 3.4.1.2 (RFR) and 3.4.1.3 (MaxCFT) provide that the metrics to calculate RFR and MaxCFT end at delivery to the destination. While Table 3.4.2 (applicable to RFR) specifies CONUS and OCONUS delivery times, it does not include specific destinations. Table 3.4.3 specifies delivery times without distinguishing between CONUS/OCONUS. Please provide specific destinations to enable Offeror(s) to properly bid transportation cost and estimated travel times. Alternatively, please confirm that "destination" will not be shipboard.

Destination will not be shipboard. Destinations will include both CONUS and OCONUS US and friendly military facilities normally used for similar deliveries as stated in the beginning of Section F.

14 RFP Pg. 155, Sections L.2.2 and L.2.3 Section L.2.2 provides that Volumes I through III shall each contain a cover letter containing, among other items, "[t]itle of proposal, proposal number, and RFP number (N00024-20-R-5500)."

Similarly, Section L.2.3 provides that the Offeror's company name, proposal number, and RFP number" shall appear at the top of each page.

Please clarify what the Government means by "proposal number."

This would be the unique proposal number that an offeror assigns their proposal in response to this solicitation.

15 RFP Pgs. 144-145, Section J Will the Government please provide the following J-Attachments:

(1) J-17 AMDR Program Protection Plan (PPP) Tailored Contract Version (classified); (2) J-20 – Air and Missile Defense Radar Security Classification Guide: SCG ID 03-152.06, 01 MAY 2013 (classified); (3) J-21 – Air and Missile Defense Radar Security Classification Guide Clarification and Classified Addendum, 18 JUL 2016 (classified); (4) J-22 – Air and Missile Defense Radar Security Classification Guide Clarification for Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, 13 JAN 2017 (classified); (5) J- 23 – Air and Missile Defense Radar Security Classification Guide Clarification Letter, 13 AUG 2017 (classified); and (6) J-24 – Air and Missile Defense Radar Security Classification Guide Interim Update Letter, 01 FEB 2019 (classified)? The Government posted all classified J-Attachments to the bidder's library space in the "J-Attachments" folder 16 RFP, Section L Page 159 - Section 2.7.1 Tech Volume - Tab A The RFP states, "The Offeror shall provide a manufacturing plan and work flowchart, based upon the work breakdown structure provided herein as Attachment J-S5". In the latest release, GFI Attachment JS- 5 was removed. Please remove the reference in the RFP to this attachment or provide Attachment JS-5.

The correct reference under Section L, 2.7.1, Tab A, is J-05. This has been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

17 RFP, Section L Page 163 - 2.7.1 Tab G This section references DRMP "for the purposes of this Draft Solicitation." Are there any updates to DRMP to consider since the draft solicitation?

Section L, 2.7.1, Tab G incorrectly cites the Draft, while it should have cited "For the purposes of this Solicitation,…" This has been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

18 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 61, SOW Section C.3.1.6.2 SOW Section 3.1.6.2 (2nd paragraph) provides that "[e]ach HP&S contractor shall assess all submitted Problem Reports and submit responses via Problem Report (linked within the PDM system) with impact assessments for cost, schedule, and scope to the Government’s PDM system."

As drafted, this is unbounded scope; an Offeror cannot predict the frequency of another Contractor's Problem Reports, particularly where the HP&S Contractor(s) will likely have divergent manufacturing processes, suppliers, and potentially divergent TDPs that could drive a significant number of Problem Reports.

Recommend the RFP be revised to specify a number of Problem Reports the Contractor must assess (with anything above that number representing new scope), or to place this scope under a Level of Effort CLIN.

The Government will not be establishing a separate Level of Effort CLIN for the scope contained in SOW Section 3.1.6.2 and shall remain in the production CLINs. However, one example of historical figures is AMDR LRIP, where there have been 3 class I ECPs and 427 Class II ECPs over the course of 3 years with 30 LCCBs. These historical figures are in no way binding and is only offered as a historical example.

19 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 102, Section F and pg. 127, Section I For the FFP Sustainment CLINs, recommend the RFP be updated to allow for 2 in 1 invoicing under DFARS 252.232-7006(f)(ii)(B) on a monthly basis, rather than progress payments.

DFARS 252.232-7006 has been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation. The sustainment CLINs are supplies, therefore the 2-in-1 invoicing does not apply.

20 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 64, SOW Section C.3.1.9 SOW Section 3.1.9 includes a requirement to support a Software System Safety Technical Review Panel (SSSTRP). By definition, SSSTRPs are very software focused; given that the HP&S contract scope does not include software development, please clarify the HP&S Contractor(s)' expected input to the SSSTRP. Alternatively, recommend this scope be removed from the HP&S Contract.

This scope has been removed under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

21 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 161, Section L.2.7.1 "Tab C - Proposed

Configuration Changes" Under the Section L Tab C instructions, Offeror(s) must "address the TDP guidance provided in Attachment JS-7 by proposing solutions for specific items with noted obsolescence issues in Table 2." For clarity, recommend this sentence be revised as follows: "The Offeror shall address the TDP guidance provided in Attachment JS-7 by proposing describing its redesign process to develop solutions for specific items with noted obsolescence issues in Table 2, to be introduced after contract award via ECP."

Under the Section L instructions for proposing configuration changes, Offeror(s) can't "propose solutions" to the specific items identified in Table 2 unless a form, fit, function replacement already exists.

Section Tab C under Sections L and M have been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

22 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 161, Section L.2.7.1 "Tab C - Proposed Configuration Changes"

Under the Section L Tab C Instructions, Offeror(s) are instructed to provide an impact assessment of items that the Government intends to resolve via separate contract actions, as well as propose mitigations to those impacts.

Please specify which items in Attachment JS-7 the Government intends to resolve via separate contract actions, and what these separate contract actions will be, to allow Offeror(s) to provide the requested impact assessment.

Section Tab C under Sections L and M have been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

23 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 152, Section L.2.1 "Proposal Format and Delivery"

Given current guidance from CDC and Government authorities for social distancing and safe material handling, will the Government rescind the requirement for two (2) paper hard copies of an Offeror's proposal? Producing hard copies requires handling by numerous employees during the printing, assembly, checking, packing and shipping of those copies.

Alternative proposal submission options have been added under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

24 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 152, Section L.2.1 "Proposal Format and Delivery"

Similar to Question 9, above, will the Government modify the proposal delivery instructions to also allow a completely electronic delivery (as an alternate to DVDs) via a secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site specified by the Government (e.g. DOD Safe) or provided by the Offeror? Allowing purely electronic delivery provides Offeror(s) additional flexibility observe CDC and other government guidance to businesses to maximize working from home. While producing DVDs requires less interaction than paper hard copies, multiple employees are still involved in burning, checking and packing the physical DVDs.

Alternative proposal submission options have been added under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

25 Final RFP, dated 24 April 2020 Pg. 159, Sections L.2.7.1 "Tab A - Manufacturing Plan"

Section L.2.7.1 (Tab A - Manufacturing Plan) provides that Offeror(s) shall provide a manufacturing plan and work flowchart based upon the work breakdown structure "provided herein as Attachment J-S5." There is no Attachment J-S5, and Attachment JS- 5 is Reserved. Please clarify whether the Government intended to reference Attachment J-05 rather than J-S5.

The correct reference under Section L, 2.7.1, Tab A, is J-05. This has been updated under amendment 0002 to the solicitation.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .