N00024-20-R-5500 Q and A 2020-04-02.pdf

N00024-20-R-5500 Questions and Answers 04/02/2020

Attachment 3 - AN/SPY-6 N00024-20-R-5500 Question Submittal Form Question Number: Question Source:

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

Page number and paragraph header from source:

Question: Answer:

1 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 149, Section L 1.7

If an Offeror believe it will not evaluate well for the Leader role but still wishes to participate, can it submit a Challenger-only bid?

Per Section L, the Government will only accept bids that include the Leader role.

Offerors may include information in their proposals that identifies any changes from the Leader proposal associated with a Challenger award. Per Section M, the Government will separately evaluate the Challenger role. Section M 3.3, Step 3 states "this step will result in a separate set of evaluation rating for each proposal considered for the Challenger role."

2 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 175, Section M Sect 3.3

Would the customer consider limiting the time between award of a Leader contract and potential award of a Challenger contract to a maximum of 30 calendar days? Having an undefined time limit for a Challenger award presents risk to delivery for the Government.

Section M of the final RFP will remove the statement "The Government reserves the right to award the Leader and Challenger contracts at different times." The Government intendeds to award the Leader and Challenger contract at the same time.

3 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 90

C-227-H009 ACCESS

TO DATA OR

COMPUTER

SOFTWARE WITH

RESTRICTIVE

MARKINGS (NAVSEA)

(JAN 2019)

According to "Access to Data or Computer Software with Restrictive Markings", Offerors would need to enter into a written agreement to gain access to such data or software. Offerors needs drawings prior to the release of the final RFP.

The final RFP TDP documents will only include Government Purpose Rights markings in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013(f)(2) and 252.227-7014(f)(3) for the AN/SPY-6(V)4 documents. All other TDP documents should not contain any restrictive markings. The Bidder's Library has been updated to include documents with corrected markings. Please notify the PCO and Contract Specialist immediately if any of the TDP documents contain any restrictive markings with the exception of the Government Purpose Rights markings for AN/SPY-6(V)4.

4 Draft RFP Page 74, Paragraph 3.3, Engineering and Production Support, (CLIN 0017); Page 9, Section B, CLIN 0017

The scope of work defined in Paragraph 3.3 for the Challenger will require more than 12 months duration for developing and executing transition to production activities including implementing the fabrication and assembly processes necessary for transition to production such as special tooling, special test equipment, production of proof of manufacturing units, and pilot runs to support full rate production. It is recommended that the CLIN 0017 period of performance be changed to account for the extra year the Challenger requires to execute these efforts.

The final RFP will include a period of performance of 18 months for CLIN 0017.

5 GFI TDP GFI TDP The GFI TDP provided contains insufficient information to manufacture and test the system as well as provide an acceptable proposal in order to meet and understand all the requirements contained in the RFP.

Additional information, e.g., test procedures, test fixtures, native drawing files, CAD files, source code, firmware, etc., are required in order to execute the program as defined.

The Bidder's Library has been updated and will continue to be updated with the latest TDP/GFI as it becomes available for publication. Please check the bidder's library regularly for any advance drafts or related GFI. The final RFP will also include the latest

TDP/GFI.

6 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Pages 159-160, Tab G- Sustainment and Life Cycle Support Plan

Will the Government provide the current DMSMS listing associated with the existing hardware configuration for each variant?

Final RFP will include Attachment JS-7 that includes additional TDP guidance such as

DMSMS.

7 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 141, Section J- List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Would the Government provide all Section J attachments 3 months in advance of the RFP? For example, the SEP was not included with the current draft RFP.

The Government will provide J-Attachments with the Final RFP. The Bidder's Library has been updated and will continue to be updated with the latest TDP/GFI as it becomes available for publication. Please check the bidder's library regularly for any advance drafts or related GFI.

8 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 61, sect 3.1.6.2 and pg 77 sect

3.3.1.2. Configuration

Management defined

If the Leader proposes a HW change to the baseline TDP and the government accepts changes through the HP&S Local Configuration Control Board (LCCB), would the Challenger need to conduct regression testing and address how each change affects B2 Specifications, Internal IRS, or HM&E IRS requirements? If yes, should the Offeror in the Challenger role assume any changes from the Leader results in a future ECP?

The Government's intent is to maintain a common baseline, but exceptions may be made to allow divergences. The LCCB will assess each proposed change and may approve the change for one or both contractors. Part of this decision process will be to request impact assessments from each contractor (such as how the change affects specifications and the contractor's processes).

Thus, the Challenger should assume it will be required to assess all proposed changes from the Leader, but not all proposed changes will result in a Challenger-applicable ECP.

9 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 104, Section F - Deliveries or Performance

Would the Government provide Period of Performance for CLINs X0006, X0007, X0011, X0016?

Section F of the final RFP will include a period of performance of within 30 months of option exercise for CLINs 0006, 0007, 0011, and 0016.

10 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 39, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, Clause B- 215-H002 - Refunds

A.) Would the Government confirm that the spare parts referenced in this clause only apply to the Leader as part of Sustainment and Provision Item Ordering?

B.) Would the Government update the language to define what is meant by the term "support equipment"?

Final RFP will limit the applicability of this clause to the PIO and Sustainment CLINs. The Government does not intend to update the text language at this time.

11 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 41, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, Note A - Production CLINs 1001-1004

In order to increase competition and ensure the Government gets the best possible pricing, the Offeror suggests that the odd number of units in the second year be competed between the Leader and the Challenger in the same manner as CLINs 2001-4004.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

12 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Pages 43-44, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, Note B - Sustainment RMA LRU Stepladder

While Table B.2 contains the maximum RMA LRU sustainment quantities, the RMA LRU Stepladder table on page 43 does not contain the steps within the Stepladder required for bidding purposes. This information is required for Offerors to begin working with the supply base prior to the final RFP release.

Would the government provide the minimum quantity and the steps within the Stepladder at least 3 months prior to the final RFP release?

Section L 2.7.5 allows for offerors to determine the acceptable stepladder breaks up to the max quantities contained in Table B.2. The final RFP will contain only the following restriction in stepladder quantity breaks; for CLINs 2020, 3020, and 4020 the Offerors stepladder breaks shall not be smaller than 50 units per step.

13 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 44, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, Note B - Sustainment RMA LRU Stepladder

The RFP states that "any exercised option (for sustainment RMA LRUs) shall be IAW the latest drawings unless otherwise directed". It also states that if an Option CLIN is exercised more than once during a 60 day period, the unit price will be adjusted downward, presumably due discounted pricing at higher quantities.

The Offeror believes that this should only be true for lots of sustainment items purchased referencing the same drawing revisions.

Otherwise, the Offeror will not achieve Economic Ordering Quantity discounts from suppliers, since the configuration of the LRU will likely be different.

Changes in production will not flow immediately into sustainment of fielded assets and affect pricing of parts purchased within 60 days of executing sustainment options. Therefore, the Government does not anticipate drawing number changes for sustainment purchase orders within 60 days of any sustainment option exercise. The LCCB will consider impacts to sustainment for all proposed ECPs and other changes to include the recent exercise of sustainment options.

The Government will consider this recommendation prior to final RFP release.

14 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Pages 49-52, Section

2.0 - Applicable Documents

All of the SPY-6 (AMDR) requirements documents have been removed from the mandatory documents list (page 49) and the Technical Data Package (page 53). Does the Government intend to supply these documents to potential Offerors for accurate bidding purposes?

Specifications will be provided in the Bidder's Library.

15 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Pages 61-62, Section

3.1.2 Technical Data

Package, Page 53 and Section 3.1.6.2, HP&S

LCCB TDP

Configuration Management

The language in the prior draft RFP required the Offeror to "prepare and deliver an updated TDP"; the current draft RFP requires the Offeror to "prepare and deliver updates to the TDP". Section 3.1.6.2 HP&S LCCB TDP Configuration Management, states that "the HP&S LCCB will approve and determine the required change documentation". Since this is a fixed price contract, would the Government explicitly state that TDP updates are to be provided as part of the contractor's ECP package, problem report, or change request?

Yes, the ECP CDRLs (and other change documentation CDRLs) contain the TDP updates that will be approved by the LCCB.

The Government will replace drawings in the HW Product Baseline TDP as these approved updates are received and accepted.

16 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 57, 3.1.4.2 Compliance to NIST 800-171 a)

Within NIST 800-171, requirement 3.1.19 provides that CUI “at rest” shall be encrypted on mobile devices and mobile computing platforms only. Would the Government please confirm that the 3.13.16 requirement above for encryption of data “at rest” applies only to mobile devices and mobile computing platforms.

Any comments on the NIST 800-171 should be submitted to the following: National Institute of Standards and Technology Attn: Computer Security Division, Information Technology Laboratory 100 Bureau Drive (Mail Stop 8930) Gaithersburg, MD 0899-8930 Electronic Mail: sec-cert@nist.gov

17 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 51 Mandatory Documents, nn.

Technical Data Package (TDP), Attachment J-02

Offerors require a complete & accurate TDP prior to the release of the final RFP in order to be in a position to provide an accurate bid for all SPY-6 variants included in this competition. Would the Government inform the Offerors when to expect to receive the complete SPY-6 TDPs for the SPY-6 (V) 2 EASR Rotator radar variant?

The Bidder's Library has been updated and will continue to be updated with the latest TDP information as it becomes available for publication. The latest Bidder's library updates include (V)2 details.

18 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 73, Section C, SOW, 3.2.5.2 Delta Physical Configuration Audit (PCA)

The RFP states that "the Contractor shall update and deliver a Delta Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) Plan within ninety

(90) days of option exercise", which requires disassembly of a completed unit. This implies that a until will be produced within 90 days of Option award. Would the Government change this requirement stated that a Delta PCA be conducted upon production completion of the first unit in that option? Would the Government accept in-process data and PCA steps with DCMA oversight?

Developing the delta PCA plan does not require disassembly of the completed unit.

Final RFP will clarify the requirements of the delta PCA.

19 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Section C, SOW,

3.3.1.4 Exit Criteria, Pages 77-78 and 3.3 Engineering and Production Support

(CLIN 0017)

(CHALLENGER ONLY),

The RFP states that "the Contractor shall deliver Proof-of-Manufacturing hardware demonstrating compliance with the TDP, in the following quantities:

i. TRIMMs – 12 units

ii. DREXs – 12 of each LRU

iii. RMA chassis – 6 units

iv. Overlap beamformer components – 6 each

v. Radiator panels – 6 units" It also states that "All scope contained within this CLIN shall by completed by no later than 12 months after contract award to the Challenger." Would the Government allow the Challenger to complete the CLIN17 scope in 18 months? Would the Government allow this activity to occur in parallel with production, during the material ordering period?

The final RFP will include a period of performance of 18 months for CLIN 0017.

20 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Pages 77-78, Section

C, SOW, 3.4

Sustainment Support (LEADER ONLY), Page 78 and 3.3.1.2 HP&S

LCCB TDP

Configuration Management

The RFP states that "the Contractor shall provide sustainment support for the repair or replacement of the following RMA LRUs:

1. Transmit-Receive Integrated Monolithic Modules (TRIMMs)

2. DREX Auxiliary Power Control Card (APCC)

3. DREX Dual Channel (DC)

4. DREX Frequency Synthesizer (FS) The RFP also states that "In the event that the Government approves TDP changes for one HP&S contractor and not the other, identification of this difference in as-built configuration will be identified in the PDM system and be viewable to all contractors."

A.) Since Sustainment is Leader Only, does the Government expect that the Leader will produce the Challenger's hardware configuration for Sustainment purposes?

B.) Alternatively, will the Leader be required to purchase the Challenger's hardware for Sustainment purposes?

Implementation of proposed changes must be assessed by the contractor and LCCB. The Leader may be required to sustain hardware configurations that they are not producing.

The Government is not stipulating how the Leader plans to do so.

21 RFP dated 12-12-2019 page 55, Section C:

Description/Specs/

SOW

SOW states, "In addition, the Manufacturing Plan shall identify production metrics for the key subsystems. Key subsystems include the Transmit/Receive channels and other array and Receiver/Exciter LRUs of costs greater than 10% of the total system production cost per shipset." Will the Government please provide a specific LRU list?

LRU list is provided as part of Bidder's Library.

22 RFP dated 12-12-2019 Page 75, 3.3 Engineering and Production Support

(CLIN 0017)

(CHALLENGER ONLY)

The Contractor shall conduct a Production Readiness Review (PRR) no later than 9 months after contract award. Please provide clarification on which contract award / CLIN? Provided the Government permits 18 months for CLIN0017, would this shift PRR to month 15, which is 3 months prior to the end of

CLIN0017?

CLIN 0017 is the base CLIN/contract award for the Challenger. PRR is tied to being held at a certain number of months after that award.

Final RFP will clarify the PRR date based on an 18 month period of performance for CLIN 0017.

23 RFP Page 61, Paragraph

3.1.6.2 - HP&S LCCB

TDP Configuration Management

How will sufficient regression testing be determined and agreed upon by all parties to address any TDP updates, and is it expected that both leader and challenger execute the same regression test procedure?

How will these procedures be drafted and controlled?

Sufficient regression testing per change will be determined, documented, and approved via the LCCB. In general, for same changes, the expectation would be for the same level of regression testing to occur. However, as there may be differences in test equipment and/or other circumstances, the LCCB may allow for differences in regression testing between the contractors. The Contractor's CM Plan should establish overarching regression testing policy for approval by the Government to set expectations.

24 RFP Page 62, Paragraph

3.1.8.1 - Testing

When will the OEM test Plan and Procedures be made available for reference?

The Bidder's Library has been updated to include test plans and procedures. The Bidder's Library will continue to be updated with the latest TDP/GFI as it becomes available for publication.

25 RFP Page 84, Paragraph

3.5 - Second Source Qualification

For clarification, is the expectation for the contractor to witness testing of each TRIMM built by the second source?

The expectation is that the contractor will determine the necessary level of witnessing and other activities to qualify the second source.

26 RFP Page 40, Note A- Option Exercise and Page 99 Section F

The award schedule in table A.1 includes one additional system than shown in section F.

Can you please confirm the anticipated Max award quantities.

Final RFP includes alignment between Note A max quantities and Section F deliveries.

27 RFP Page 8 CLIN 0016 supplies services

CLIN 0016 Second Source Qualification options does not specify what item is being qualified. Can you please confirm that that CLIN 0016 option is for DREX FS?

The final RFP will include DREX FS under CLIN 0016.

28 RFP Page 84, Paragraph

3.5 Second Source

Qualification

The RFP does not address the requirement to produce hardware or the quantity to be manufactured to support First Article testing; however, the paragraph implies hardware is required. Can guidance be provided as to the quantity of units required to support First Article Test for each of the four second source CLINs?

The requirement is to qualify a second source through test, which implies hardware is necessary. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's qualification plan IAW Sections L and M.

29 RFP Page 124 52.217-7

VAR I OPTION FOR

INCREASED QUANTITY

DRFP states the Government can exercise option for Second Source Qualification CLINs 0006, 0007, 0011 and 00016 up to 60 MACA. This would be the end of the contract period. Is it the Government’s intent to be able to exercise the Second Source Qualification options beyond the contract period?

The Government chose LOEs for flexibility in execution to allow for an exercise up to the end of the contract period. As with the production CLINs, the anticipated deliveries will occur outside of the 5-year contract period.

30 RFP Pages 2-39 Section B- Supplies or Services and Prices

What is the exact FOB Destination shipping location?

FOB Destination location candidates are provided in Section F, but the exact shipping location has yet to be determined. Offeror's should expect to ship to any of the corresponding locations contained in Section F of the RFP.

31 RFP NA Will drawings for test sets/fixtures and TPS's (test program sets) for the entire system be provided as GFI?

The Government will provide everything it has obtained in original contracts in the bidder's library and TDP.

32 RFP NA Will hardware shipments be classified or unclassified?

Certain HW becomes classified when SW and/or firmware is loaded to it, making some shipments classified.

33 RFP Page 5, Section B- Supplies or Services and Prices and page

How is the CLIN 009 PIO Spares going to be defined?

The final RFP includes NAVSEA Text C-217- H001 - Provisioned Items Orders as well as an estimated value in Section B.

34 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 1 - 39, Section B To enable Offeror(s) to accurately plan their required capital investments and resources, recommend the Government provide Offeror(s) an estimate of the total number of Production Units for each variant the Government reasonably expects to procure.

Industry understands that such an estimate is nonbinding, but it would provide helpful guidance to enable accurate planning.

Recommend this information be provided on a per year basis.

This information would help enable Offeror(s)' bidding approaches.

Shipbuilding profiles shift year-to-year in some cases by several hulls. The Government plans to provide the yearly outlook as requested in execution and will award options to fit the budget. As contract award for HP&S is currently projected in Q3 FY21, the Government is not in a position to provide an accurate outlook at this time. Section B, Note A, Table A.1 includes max quantities and provides Offeror's with quantity information necessary to generate their proposals.

35 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 69, Section C.3.2.1.1

SOW Section 3.2.1.1 provides that the Contractor shall build Production Units that meet all requirements of the TDP (as defined in Section 3.1.2). Please confirm whether the TDP requirements are defined in the initial HW Product Baseline included in Attachment J-02 or the Contractor's as-built

TDP?

This information would help enable Offeror(s)' bidding approaches.

Attachment J-02 provides the initial HW Product Baseline used in evaluating proposals. Per Section L, the Offeror may propose changes to this initial baseline that are form, fit, function or that satisfy the criteria in Section L. Section M describes how this will be evaluated. In execution, J-02 will be provided via the Government's PDM system and will be updated as the HP&S LCCB approves configuration changes per Section C.

36 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 158, Section L.2.7.1 Tab C - Proposed Configuration Changes

Please explain how the Government intends to ensure it receives systems with identical performance, reliability, and interchangeability given that each HP&S Contractor may have different and divergent as-built TDPs, in accordance with Section C.3.1.2.

Section C specifies two levels of test and evaluation: Factory Acceptance Testing (on each unit) and First Article Qualification Testing (options for first units from each contractor role). The Government will review and evaluate test plans and procedures for these efforts for adequacy to satisfy the HW Product Baseline.

37 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 53, Section C.3.1.2;

Pg. 61, Section C.3.1.6.2;

Pgs. 76-77, Section C.3.3.1.2

The Government provides that it will maintain TDPs "in the Government's Product Data Management (PDM) system." What is the Government's PDM system and how will the HP&S Contractor(s) access this system?

The Government's PDM system (Windchill) is described in J-10 CM Process Document, with a draft posted to Bidder's Library.

38 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 74, Section C.3.2.5.2

SOW Section 3.2.5.2 provides that the Contractor shall schedule a delta PCA Review SETR event NLT 150 calendar days after delivery of the Government-identified unit.

Please clarify what "Government-identified unit" means; is it the first unit as described on page 73 of the draft RFP ("The delta PCA requires major disassembly of the first unit... " (emphasis added))?

The Final RFP has been updated to clarify this requirement.

39 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 73, Section C.3.2.5.2

The second paragraph of Section C.3.2.5.2 provides that "[t]he delta PCA requires major disassembly of the first unit to a level, which will allow for verification of all drawing defined configuration items..." Major disassembly adds risk. Recommend the Government authorize in-process PCAs to remove the need for "major disassembly" and reduce that risk.

This update would help enable Offeror(s) bidding approaches.

The Final RFP has been updated to clarify this requirement.

40 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 74, Section C.3.2.5.2

SOW Section 3.2.5.2 is entitled "Delta PCA" and references a delta PCA throughout.

Please clarify what the Government means by a "delta" PCA. Is this language intended to indicate that in-process PCAs, as described in Question 26, above, are permitted? If yes, recommend this be made more clear.

This information would help enable Offeror(s)' bidding approaches.

The term "delta PCA" is used because SPY-6 originated with contracts where the OEM will have conducted a PCA for all but the (V)4 variant. It is simply an editorial usage for the program, and does not indicate a difference in scope from an original PCA.

41 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pgs. 74-78, Section C.3.3

CLIN 0017 (Engineering and Production Support) appears to be focused on a limited subset of hardware given that Proof-of- Manufacturing hardware is only required for TRIMMs, DREXs, RMA chassis, overlap beamformer components, and radiator panels (see SOW Section C.3.3.1.4).

However, transition to production (TTP) is also required for all four subsystems (antenna, power, cooling and backend processing system) and their associated LRUs and components across all SPY-6(V) variants.

Recommend the Government update SOW Section C.3.3.1.4 to clearly include required TTP scope for these additional subsystems and associated LRUs and components.

This update would help enable Offeror(s)' bidding approaches.

This item will impact Offeror(s) bidding approaches.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

42 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 61, Section C.3.1.6.2

SOW Section 3.1.6.2 provides that the Contractor shall correct all issues and change requests. Recommend this language be updated to reflect that the Contractor shall disposition all issues and change requests. It is not cost effective to correct all issues, particularly low priority items or items that are more appropriately addressed via a waiver rather than correction.

The LCCB will determine what "correct" means for each individual issue - in some cases, Variances or other solutions may be granted. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to effect the action assigned, not just provide a disposition.

43 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 62, Section C.3.1.6.2

SOW Section 3.1.6.2 provides that the HP&S LCCB will assign part or all required change documentation generation to the Leader, the Challenger, the Design Agent, or any combination of the three. As written, this is unbounded scope because there is no way to anticipate how much change documentation will be required.

Accordingly, Offeror(s) cannot adequately bid this scope until it is clearly defined.

This language in the draft solicitation would challenge potential Offeror(s)' bidding approach.

Offerors must make assumptions for risk based on TDP maturity, likelihood of major/minor changes in production, and the possibility of being assigned to develop changes or variance documents for any issues that arise.

44 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 61, Section C.3.1.6 SOW Section 3.1.6 Configuration Management states the Government will conduct and chair the HP&S Local Configuration Control Board (LCCB) and assign resolution of all Problem Reports to Leader, Challenger, the Design Agent, or any combination of the three. In addition, the SOW requires the Contractor shall correct all issues and change requests assigned to it by the HP&S LCCB as part of the FPIF Production CLIN scope. Since the quantity and complexity of future HP&S Problem Reports is unknown, it is impossible for a Contractor to estimate the scope and cost of this effort. Request that corrective action for HP&S LCCB Problem Requests should be contracted on separate Cost type CLIN as opposed to FPIF Production CLIN.

This language in the draft solicitation would challenge potential Offeror(s)' bidding approach.

Offerors must make assumptions for risk based on TDP maturity, likelihood of major/minor changes in production, and the possibility of being assigned to develop changes or variance documents for any or all issues that arise. In accordance with Section C, 3.1.6.1, ECP Class 1 change implementation will be handled via the changes clause in the contract.

45 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 42, Section B In determining whether to apply the alternative distribution methodology in Note A, the Government evaluates whether the Leader or Challenger has failed to meet all contract requirements for at least one (1) previously awarded Production CLIN (including CLINs 0001 and 0004). CLINs 0001 and 0004 only apply to the Leader, meaning the alternative distribution methodology could be applied before the Challenger has any contractually relevant scope.

Recommend the Government remove CLINs 0001 and 0004 from the CLINs that are evaluated when determining whether the alternative distribution methodology applies.

Section B Note A of the final RFP will be updated to apply the alternative distribution method starting in Option Year 2, therefore the Challenger would have contractually relevant scope.

46 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 42, Section B The alternative distribution methodology described in Note A does not reflect a preference to shift Production Units to the HP&S Contractor who is meeting all contract requirements. To reward and further incentivize contractual compliance, recommend Production Units be awarded to the HP&S Contractor who is meeting all applicable requirements, including Section F deliveries. This change has the added benefit of reflecting the Government's emphasis on schedule (evidenced in Section B, Note A, and Section B, Note D) in which the Government rewards and incentivizes early delivery.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

47 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 42, Section B Section B, Note A provides that if a Contractor "...is not meeting all contract requirements, including Section F deliveries" (emphasis added), the distribution of units will be based on three elements where price is the first element. Recommend Government reword to say "upon Contractor meeting Section C SOW requirements for the applicable CLIN."

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

48 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 98, Section E Subsection (b) of Clause E-246-W002 contemplates individual criminal liability for "the making of false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification." The quoted language is very broad and could potentially subject the individual signatory to criminal liability in inappropriate circumstances (e.g., for honest mistakes, issues that arise during and due to transit, etc.). Recommend this clause be removed or, if not removed, amended to limit potential criminal prosecutions to knowingly, willfully, wantonly or recklessly making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification.

The Government does not intend to update the NAVSEA text.

49 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 111, Section H Subsection (d) of Clause H-209-H004 proscribes the Contractor from releasing, disclosing or using certain Government information in a way that would permit or result in disclosure to any party outside the Government. However, Offeror(s) and the eventual HP&S Contractor(s) will need to release and disclose the Government-furnished TDP to parties outside of the Government to solicit and award subcontracts. Recommend this subsection be eliminated, or updated to make clear that release, disclosure, and/or use is permitted in performance of the HP&S contract.

This language in the draft solicitation would challenge potential Offeror(s)' bidding approach.

NAVSEA Text H-209-H004 has been updated for the final RFP to remove this issue.

50 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 69, Section C.3.1.13.7

SOW Section 3.1.13.7 provides that all items posted to the IDE, including drafts of deliverables, shall be considered delivered for purposes of the DFARS data rights clauses (and therefore subject to the same rights asserted as for final deliveries).

Working documents, including drafts of deliverables, often go through multiple iterations, and later drafts may contain data that conflicts with earlier drafts due to availability of new information. Accordingly, recommend this language be removed and drafts not be treated as delivered for purposes of the data rights clauses.

Later submission of draft or even final documentation does have an impact on the data rights of those delivered items unless otherwise asserted in an Offeror's RFP Attachment J-06, J-07, and J-09.

51 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 47, Section B Note D describes adjustments for CLINs 2001

- 2004, 3001 - 3004, and 4001 - 4004 for late and early delivery. Recommend the language be updated to make clear that the beneficial adjustments for early delivery also apply to CLINs 0001, 0004, and 1001 - 1004.

Note D in the final RFP will be updated to include CLINs 0001, 0004, and 1001-1004 in the benefits for early deliveries portion of the note.

52 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 45, Section B, Note C Sustainment Metrics

Section B, Note C specifies only penalties for poor performance against sustainment metrics. Given the Government's focus on performance, please explain why the Government is not considering positive performance incentives on sustainment activities (e.g. incentives for higher fill rates with a 105/110% adjustment). Recommend the Government include positive performance incentives to encourage improved performance.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

53 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 42, Section B Note A provides that revised Production Option pricing shall be submitted within 30 days of the Government's request. As this is insufficient time to prepare a TINA-compliant proposal, recommend the Government add language to Note A to document the applicable TINA exemption.

Per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1), the contracting officer shall not require certified cost and pricing data to support any action when the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition.

54 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 161, Section L, Table AppB.1

The totals on Table AppB.1 appear to be incorrect. The totals should be 7 for AN/SPY- 6(V)1, 9 for AN/SPY-6(V)2, 8 for AN/SPY- 6(V)3, and 7 for AN/SPY-6(V)4, resulting in a grand total of 31 ships.

Final RFP will be updated to include the correct quantities and align with Note A.

55 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg.151, Section L.2.2 On page 151, the instructions provide "Volumes II through IV shall each contain a cover letter containing...." Based on updated instructions for the letter of transmittal, it appears that this should provide "Volumes I through III shall each contain a cover letter..." Recommend the Government make this correction.

Final RFP will be updated to correct this discrepancy.

56 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 8, Section B;

Pg. 84, Section C.3.5

In Section B, CLINs 0006, 0007, and 0011 specify which LRU is subject to second source qualification. In contrast, CLIN 0016 does not specify the applicable LRU. Based on SOW Section 3.5, CLIN 0016 appears to cover second source qualification of the DREX FS. Recommend CLIN 0016 on page 8 be updated to specify "DREX FS."

The final RFP will include DREX FS under CLIN 0016.

57 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pgs. 174, 180, 181 and 182, Section M

Section M.3.3 incorrectly treats CLIN 0016 (Second Source Qualification) as a Production CLIN in several locations.

Specifically, page 174 provides "[i]n step one (1), the Government will develop a randomly selected unit profile for the production CLINs (CLINs 0001, 0004, 0012-0016...;" page 180 provides "the Government will develop a single randomly selected unit profile for the production CLINs 0001, 0004, 0012-0016..."

and "the Government will calculate an evaluated price for each production CLIN (CLINs 0001, 0004, 0012-0016...;" page 181 provides "the Government will calculate the Leader-only TEP by adding the Leader-only evaluated prices for CLINs 0001, 0004, 0012- 0016...;" and page 182 provides that "the Government will calculate the each [sic] Challenger TEP to include the pricing from CLINs 0001, 0004, 0012-0016...." Further, Section M.3.3 does not include CLIN 0016 with the other Second Source Qualification CLINs (see pages 181 and 182 in which the Government references total price for CLINs 0006, 0007, 0008, and 0011). Recommend this language be corrected to reflect that CLIN 0016 is not a Production CLIN.

Section M of the final RFP will be updated to clearly define what CLINs are included in the random sampling as well as what CLINs are included in the TEP.

58 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pgs. 2 - 36, 40, Section B Pgs. 99 - 103, Section F

The total Production Unit quantity in Sections B and F are inconsistent.

Specifically, Section B includes options for 60 and 61 Production Units (e.g., stepladder quantities vs. Table A.1) while Section F describes delivery for up to 60 Production Units. Recommend the Government correct this discrepancy. Also recommend Table AppB.1 be reconciled to the total Production Unit quantities in Sections B and F.

Final RFP includes alignment between all sections of the RFP.

59 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 161, Section L.2.7.1

Table App B.1 is labeled "Challenger Quantities for IMS," and the quantities assume the Government awarded all odd units to the Challenger. This is misleading, as the Challenger may not receive all, or any, of the odd units. For clarity, recommend renaming the table as "Challenger Quantities for IMS - Maximum Potential Quantities."

This language clarifies that the table reflects the maximum potential quantity based on the ordering procedures described in Section B and not the actual quantity the Challenger will receive.

The quantities includes in Section L.2.7.1 is for Challenger IMS development only. It does not guarantee a minimum number of units to the Challenger. It also does not represent a maximum potential quantity for the Challenger as based on the instructions in Note A.

60 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 161, Section L.2.7.1 Appendix B

For purposes of Appendix B Challenger IMS, please clarify when the Government expects to exercise CLIN 0017.

CLIN 0017 is the base CLIN for contract award to a Challenger, provided a Challenger is selected.

61 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 96, Section E Section E provides that acceptance of CLINs 0017, 0006, 0007, 0011, and 0016 shall be evidenced by a DD Form 250 signed by an authorized Government representative of the PEO IWS 2.0 Program Office.

Recommend Section E for these CLINs be updated to allow an authorized Government representative from either the PEO IWS

2.0 Program Office or Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) to sign the DD Form 250. This provides the Government added flexibility and leverages DCMA's significant experience and expertise in inspecting and accepting deliverables.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

62 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 84, Section C.3.5 SOW Section 3.5 provides that the Contractor shall conduct First Article Testing sufficient to certify the Second Source for current and future "AMDR-S/RSC systems."

Recommend the phrase "AMDR-S/RSC systems" be replaced with "SPY-6(V) variants."

Final RFP will be updated to remove "AMDR- S/RSC systems" from Section C 3.5

63 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 153, Section L.2.3 The Section L.2.3 instructions provide that "[a]ny type contained within tables, graphs, etc. shall not be smaller than 8-point Times New Roman font." Suggest that instructions also allow for 8-point Arial font (which is routinely accepted in other Government solicitations) for greater legibility when used in graphics, particularly at an 8-point font size.

Final RFP will allow for font no smaller than 8-point Ariel for any type contained within tables, graphs, ect.

64 Revised Draft RFP released 13 December 2019

Pg. 153, Section L.2.3 The Section L.2.3 instructions provide that "[o]nly pages which count against page count limitations shall be numbered." Read strictly, this conversely means that pages in volumes/tabs/sections not subject to page count limitations should not be numbered.

Recommend revising this instruction to say "Pages which count against page count limitations shall be consecutively numbered within the Volume, Tab or Section. For example, in Volume I, Tab A pages would be numbered A-1 through A-X, Tab B pages would be numbered B-1 through B-X; etc.

totaling 300 pages." Permitting consecutive numbering within tabs limits the “ripple effect” of last minute revisions or change pages, which otherwise necessitate reprinting every subsequent page in the 300 page tech volume and updating all page references.

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

65 TDP Document B4980655, Rev D, Paragraph 3.2.1.3

Paragraph 3.2.1.3 references classified document CL-AMDR-SRD-N16025 (Gen 5.3 T/RIMM and RF Head Masking, Coding and Test Waveforms). This document is required in order to develop solutions for the Transmit/Receive RF Head. Does the Government intend to provide this document?

Classified TDP deliveries are enroute via Bidder's Library updates to those who requested access to the Bidder's Library. The Government requests any missing items be noted.

66 Draft RFP Page 12, Section B CLIN 1001 is the first production unit for a Challenger and therefore have similar risk for overrun as CLIN 0001. It is recommended that the Over Target Share Ratio: 60/40 be changed to be consistent with CLIN 0001.

Please change Over Target Share Ratio for Option Year 1 production CLINs to 70/30.

Final RFP will be updated to include an over target share ratio of 70/30 for CLIN 1001.

67 Draft RFP Pages 2 – 34; Section B

Can the hardware delivery CLINs be separated to allow time phased delivery and invoicing of Above Deck and Below Deck items?

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

68 Draft RFP Page 62, Paragraph

3.1.6.3 & Page 77, Paragraph 3.3.1.3 Trade Studies and Analysis

Paragraph is duplicated. Please remove one?

These paragraphs are not duplicative. Section C 3.1 pertains to "CLINs 0001, 0004, 1001- 1004, 2001-2004, 3001-3004, 4001-4004" while Section C 3.3 pertains to CLIN 0017.

69 Draft RFP Page 8, CLIN 0016 CLIN 0016 has no parenthetical label. Please add label after second source qualification

"(DREX FS)".

The final RFP will include DREX FS under CLIN 0016.

70 Draft RFP Page 146, Paragraph 1.3

The RFP states, "This program will require access and utilization of classified information up to Collateral SECRET security level. Classified information that is classified above Collateral SECRET security level SHALL NOT be included in the Offeror’s proposal submission". The word "Collateral" should not be used in this context since "Secret" is the only classification level required. Please remove the word "Collateral" in these sentences.

The term "Collateral" is meant to exclude any Special Access Program (SAP) information of any sort, which could also be SECRET.

71 Draft RFP Page 149, Section L 2.0

The RFP states, "The solicitation response shall be contained in five (5) separate volumes:". The RFP identifies four volumes, unless Vol 1A (Classified) is being counted as the 5th volume? Please clarify/correct as necessary.

Final RFP will be updated to include only four

(4) volumes.

72 Draft RFP Page 175 The Government reserves the right to award the Leader & Challenger contract at different times. Recommend this be changed to award both contracts at the same time to allow the Challenger to start transition efforts ahead of production.

Section M of the final RFP will remove the statement "The Government reserves the right to award the Leader and Challenger contracts at different times." The Government intendeds to award the Leader and Challenger contract at the same time.

73 Draft RFP Pages 2 – 39; Section B

The delivery schedules for the Above Deck and Below Deck items are different impacting the Inspection and Acceptance in WAWF. Can the hardware delivery CLINs be separated into A and B CLINs, to allow for delivery and invoicing of Above Deck and Below Deck items that occur at different times?

The Government will take this recommendation under advisement.

74 Draft RFP Page 53, Section C, Paragraph 3.1.2 TDP

(1) Does the Government intend that two separate AN/SPY-6(V) production baselines will evolve over time or that detailed "As Built" configuration records are maintained and submitted?

(2) Does the Government intend to sponsor and pay for both the Leader and Challenger to deliver separate complete Technical Data Packages or should Challenger TDP changes be submitted to the Leader for incorporation?

The Government will always hold configuration management of the HW Product Baseline. While not intended, there may be practical business case reasons for divergences which will be treated case-by-case by the LCCB. The Government is focused on minimizing life cycle cost, which is impacted both by production and sustainment costs. All latest approved changes will be reflected in the TDP and available to the Leader, Challenger, and Design Agent contractors.

75 Draft RFP Pages 53 – 62; Section C, Paragraph 3.1.2 – .3.1.6

The SOW requirements for Technical Data Package, Plan Execution, Configuration Management, and As-Built Configuration BOM List, refer to “the contractor” and appear to be requirements for both the Leader and Challenger.

(1) Are these requirements “Leader Only?”

(2) If not, how will the Government resolve differences in Leader and Challenger submissions?

All requirements should be assumed to be both Leader and Challenger unless the Section C paragraph header specifically says "Leader Only" or "Challenger Only". Section C 3.1.6 and attachment J-10 provide the Government-led CM process that will be used to adjudicate and resolve any differences in proposed changes.

76 Draft RFP Page 56, Section C, Paragraph 3.1.3 Plan Execution

This paragraph states, "The QA Program shall also address the software and firmware quality provisions of IEEE 12207. The software and firmware design, documentation and review process shall be in accordance with current standard business practices that represent the approved processes for the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) level IV. For validation of 3D Model Data, MIL-STD- 31000B, Appendix C, is available for guidance."

(1) Do the software and firmware design, documentation and review processes apply to the Challenger?

(2) Will there be a common software image load between the Leader and Challenger systems?

(3) Will a common software image be provided as GFI/GFE?

(1) Yes this applies to both the Leader and Challenger.

(2) Not necessarily - any divergences must be approved by the LCCB

(3) Yes, the Bidder's Library, TDP Attachment J- 02, and GFI Attachment J-03 will include GFI.

77 Draft RFP Page 61, Section C, Paragraph 3.1.6; Page 157, Section L, Paragraph 2.7.1; and Page 176, Section M, Paragraph 3.3 Configuration Management

In the Technical Approach Tab B - Configuration Management Plan, provides that, “the Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror addressed all content required by Section L” and “the Government will assess how well the Offeror’s plan is inclusive of the Leader, Challenger, Design Agent, and Government in terms of transparency, timeliness, and decision making.” However, the statement of work and proposal instructions do not describe the roles of the Leader versus the Challenger for Configuration Management.

Are both the Leader and Challenger responsible for proposing a plan that is inclusive of both roles?

Yes, Section C 3.1.6 states "The CM Plan shall address interactions and roles of the Contractor, other HP&S Contractor, Design Agent, and Government." Figure 3.1.6-1 depicts roles and responsibilities of the Government, Leader, Challenger, and Design Agent.

78 Draft RFP Page 64, Section C, Paragraph 3.1.10

DMSMS

This paragraph states, "The Contractor shall support and resolve all LRU, subassembly, or piece part Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/Material Shortages (obsolescence) issues necessary to execute the requirements of this contract.” The RFP does not appear to define a level of effort or Scope for this activity. In order to maintain a common baseline, should DMSMS resolution be a Leader or Design Agent accountability?

Should Challenger identified DMSMS issues and candidate solutions be the responsibility of the Leader to incorporate?

No - DMSMS is the responsibility of both the Leader and Challenger roles. For common parts, discoveries from one contractor may duplicate or benefit the other. For approved divergences in baseline parts, only one contractor would track their unique part(s).

79 Draft RFP Page 99, Section F Deliveries and Performance

This section defines that BDD and ADD are delivered to the Government defined delivery location at different times (6 months apart). How are the separate BDD and ADD deliveries contractually separated for input in WAWF to enable inspection and acceptance, shipment, receipt, tracking, and payment?

BDD and ADD is defined in Section C. Please refer to WAWF with any questions regarding the submission of a DD250.

80 Draft RFP Page 146, Section L, Paragraph 1.2

Paragraph 1.2 states, "The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award up to one (1) Leader and up to one (1) Challenger contract for production and sustainment of AN/SPY-6(V) radar variant systems. The estimated award date is 3 quarter 2021. Leader and Challenger roles are defined in Section C Statement of Work.

All Offerors must submit a Leader proposal and will be evaluated for the Challenger role in the event they are not selected as Leader."

Request the Government revise the bidder rule set to prohibit an Offeror's team (Companies A, B and C, where A is the prime Offeror) from submitting a second proposal and only changing the prime (Companies A, B, and C, where C becomes the prime Offeror). Recommend modification to words, "All Offerors must submit a single, complete or fully compliant proposal."

Please provide specific bidder rules for Leader and Challenger.

T…