20R6119 Offerors Questions & Govt Responses_020320.pdf

Bidder's Questions Dated 03 February 2020

# Document/RFP Section or Attachment Number Section/Paragraph Page(s) Requirement Description / Clause or Definitive Citation Requiring Clarification Offeror's Comment/ Question Government's Responses

1 Solicitation Section L 139 & 140 of 191 Paragraph 1.3 Availability of Government Furnished Information (GFI)

We have run into an issue with gaining access to the E-TIC repository. We have followed the instructions in RFP paragraph 1.3, however, the requests are still showing as "Pending" in AIMTC, and we have not been notified that the requests are being processed. We have urgent need to access the E-TIC repository and CAC Specifications. Provide E-TIC Reading Room access as soon as possible.

The Government is monitoring the database for submitted requests. For reading room access, please submit a separate request as detailed under Section L, Paragraph 1.3, Availability of Government Furnished Information (GFI).

2 Solicitation Section L 144 & 145 of 191 Section 1.5.1 Contents to the Offer

The solicitation document is password protected preventing the bidder to either edit the pdf or convert to word. Please provide the solicitation in word version to help with compliance with the Section L requirement to complete the SF33, fill-in Section B and complete all Offeror fill-ins, including Section K, of the solicitation.

The Government is providing the editable version for ease of proposal fill-in submission process. The official solicitation is the version posted on 3 February 2020 as a PDF (inclusive of all amendments posted).

3 Solicitation Section L 167 & 138 of 191 L-204-H002 Special Proposal Receipt Requirements for Washington Navy Yard

The solicitation provides clear instructions on hand delivery to NAVSEA but does not provide points of contact or specific instructions for hand delivery to NUWC. Does the bidder have the option to hand delivery the technical volume to NUWC? If yes, please provide specific instructions.

See Section L paragraph 1.4, Submission of Proposal for delivery to NUWC. Before an Offeror delivers its proposal, it is required that the Offeror contact the Government Points of Contacts in Section L-1.1 beforehand via email to arrange for receipt at NAVSEA or NUWC.

4 Solicitation and Attachment 7 Section L 162 of 191 Total Estimated Price for Production CLINS 0008, 0009, 0105, 0106…0706 CPIF AND Attachment 7 Share Ratios

The reference in the solicitation document states that the underrun and overrun share ratios shall be 50/50. The Attachment 7 lists the under target share ratio as 60/40.

Which ratio is correct?

The underrun and overrun share ratio shall be 50/50. An updated Attachment 7, CAC Stepladder Pricing, dated 27 January 2020, has been provided to reflect a underrun and overrun share ratio of 50/50. (Update to Section J)

5 Solicitation Section L 174 - 176 of

252.234-7001 "Notice of Earned Value Management System" (Deviation 2015-O0017)(Sep 2015)

Is the list of "applicable CLINS" listed at the top of page 176 intended to identify the CLINS subject to EVM? Is it correct to assume that any CLINS not on this list are not subject to EVM during contract performance?

Will this be incorporated into the contract as this is currently in Section L?

The "CLINS" listed at the top of page 176 are the CLINs applicable to the clause 252.234-7001.

Yes, EVM is applicable to the production CLINS. No, DFARS clause 252.234-7001 will not be incorporated into the contract.

6 Solicitation Section I 106 of 191 Section I, DFARS 252.234-7002 "Earned Value Management System" (May 2011)

Should this DFARS clause reference (Deviation 2015- O0017)(Sep 2015) making it consistent with252.234-7001 in Section L?

No, it should not reference Deviation 2015-O0017)(Sep 2015).

7 Solicitation Section L 142 of 191 1.4.2 Electronic Media Submission

This paragraph partially states that:

"Submitted electronic files shall be limited to the following extensions:

.docx Microsoft Word .xlsx Microsoft Excel .pptx Microsoft PowerPoint .pdf Adobe Acrobat .mmpx Microsoft Project" The file format ".mmpx" does not exist, should the file format listed for Microsoft Project be ".mpp"?

The file format for Microsoft Project should be ".mpp".

(Updated Section L)

8 Solicitation Section L 145 of 191 Paragraph 1.9 Paragraph 1.9 immediately follows paragraph 1.7. , is there a

1.8 that should have been included?

Paragraph 1.9 will be revised to reflect 1.8. (Updated Section L)

9 Solicitation Section M 177 & 181 of 191 Paragraphs 1.0 and 4.0

Paragraph 1.0 partially states that "Offerors are advised that the Government will not evaluate any proposal information no contained within the body of the proposal.".

Paragraph 4.0 partially states that "Additionally, Offerors are advised that the Government will evaluate only the informatio contained within the proposal (except past performance data)."

Please clarify if past performance data not contained within the body of the proposal will be evaluated or not.

The Government will use the Department of the Navy's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Department of Defense's Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) as sources of past performance information as outlined in Section L, Paragraph 2.1.4.

10 Solicitation Section B & Section C 5 & 52 of

191 CLIN 0007

Currently, the solicitation does not include a TI-24 and TI-26 EDM development and First Article. Typically, each TI cycle involves cabinet LRU design changes necessitating EDM build and test. Will the Government be revising the solicitation to include EDM and/or First Article for TI-24 and TI-26?

The government does not intend to revise the solicitation. The TI 24/TI-26 design efforts will be coordinated using the TI-22 EDM and production assets with Technical Instructions.

11 Solicitation Section C

52 - 53 of

Attachment 2:

pg 1

EDM and Kit paragraphs Paragraph 1.0

The solicitation references "one" EDM; however, each platform would require a unique EDM and testing as performance/EQT requirements would be different. Will the SOW be revised to reflect the need of EDM for each platform?

There is no unique CAC for each platform. Therefore, only one EDM is required for OHIO, and LOS ANGELES. OHIO is referred to SSGN platform only. The RFP and attachments have beene updated to remove SEAWOLF and replace OHIO with SSGN 726 class submarine.

12 Solicitation Section I 113 - 114 of 191 52.217-9 VAR II

Items 0001-0002 are believed to be incorrectly identified as options in the table. Per Section B, they are not options.

In the event First Article is required, CLINs 0001, 0002 and 0003 will become options and CLIN 0012 will be the only CLIN funded at the time of award. (Updated Section B, Note D)

13 Solicitation & Perf Spec Section B & CAC Perf Spec Rev B

5 of 191 & Page 9 CLIN 0007 of RFP and Section 3.1.1 of CAC Spec Rev B

CLIN 0007 of the solicitation is for the TI 22 CAC EDM for SEAWOLF, OHIO and LOS ANGELES Submarine Classes.

CAC Spec sec 3.1.1 cites that this P spec supports SSN 688/688I Submarines and SSGN Class Submarines only.

Should the CLIN 0007 EDM development (and also the CLIN 0012 First Article Testing ) support all four possible configurations of CAC kits, specifically OHIO (non SSGN), SSGN, SSN 688I and SEAWOLF? And if so, where are the requirements specified for OHIO (non SSGN) and

SEAWOLF?

The RFP and attachments are updated to remove SEAWOLF and replace OHIO with SSGN so the RFP and SPEC documents are consistent. CLIN 007 of the solicitaion is revised to say TI 22 CAC EDM for SSGN and LOS ANGELES. There is no unique CAC for each platform. Therefore, only one EDM is required for SSGN and LOS ANGELES. CLIN 0007 EDM and CLIN 0012 First Article Test shall support platforms SSGN and LOS ANGELES. (Updated Section B, Section C, and

SOW)

14 Solicitation Attachment 7, Stepladder Pricing All All CLINS

Our previous question notes that there may possibly be 4 different CAC system configurations for the 4 potential platforms outlined in the previous question (OHIO (non SSGN), SSGN, SSN 688I and SEAWOLF). If this assumption is correct, is it the Navy's intention to assume that any combination of these configurations could be procured via any of the stepladder quantities per attachement 7 ?

There is no unique CAC for each platform. Therefore, the stepladder quantities per Attachment 7 are to support platforms SSGN and LOS ANGELES.

15 Solicitation Section B & Section C 5 and 50 of 191 CLINS 0004, 0005, 0007 of Page 5, Section C

CLIN 0007 is for the development of the CAC EDM for TI

22. Typically one would expect another EDM design, development and test stroke for the follow-on TI baselines where the previous TI system would be upgraded with the latest tech insertion electronics; in this case, one would expect to see CLINS for TI -24 and TI 26 EDMs in this solicitation.

Since those CAC TI 24 and TI 26 EDM CLINS are not included in the solicitation, is it the Navy's intent to fund those EDM development efforts using a combination of engineering services and material funded under the major material or orders CLINS?

The TI-24/TI-26 design efforts will be coordinated using the TI- 22 EDM and production assets and the efforts will be funded under engineering services with Technical Instructions. If justified, material to support the design efforts will be procured under the major material CLINs; otherwise, it will be procured under the ODC CLINs.