20210927-Bidders Questions-RFP.pdf

N0002421R5208 Offeror's Questions and Government Responses

Question Number: Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Question: Government Response

Attachment J‐4 Spares List

1 Row 24 CIOC 7019065 Please confirm the part number for the CIOC. It appears there is a document number listed instead of the part number. Please advise.

Yes, P/N 7019065 is the correct top level part number for CIOC.

2 RFP, Section L 3.4.8 327

Section L, 3.4.8 Section 6 – Cost and Software Data Reporting

The Offeror shall submit FlexFile and Quantity Data Reports (formerly DD Form 1921, Cost Data Summary Report, and DD Form 1921–1, Functional Cost‐Hour Report) as detailed in CDRLs A008 and A009 with its pricing proposal (Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal).

What quantities are we to assume for the stepladders in order to comply with the Section L 3.4.8 requirement "The Offeror shall submit FlexFile and Quantity Data Reports as detailed in CDRLs A008 and A009 with its pricing proposal?”

Section 6‐Cost and Software Data Reporting has been removed (now Reserved) from Section L, 3.4 and 3.4.8. See Amendment 0003

3 RFP SOW 171

SOW Section 3.2.10 Program Security

The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the CEC Security Classification Guide and DoDI 5200.01, provided as GFI.

The Contractor shall secure media in accordance with the above documents and the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) provided as Attachment J‐1.

The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and submit a Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPIP) in accordance with CDRL A018. Will the Program Protection Plan be provided as GFI to support the creation of the PPIP?

The PPP will be provided to the successful offeror to support development of their PPIP.

4 SOW & Attachment J‐4 SOW 179 SOW Section 3.5.3.3 System Final Acceptance Testing (SFAT) Section 3.5.3.3 requires SFAT for all LRUs in the spares list. Given that the Attachment J‐4 Spares list does not contain an explicit designation of "LRU," does this indicate that all items in this list are LRUs?

SOW paragraph 3.5.3.3 and Attachment J‐4 have been updated. See Amendment 0003.

Attachment J‐5 CSDR Plan 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

1.1.2.1.3, 1.1.3.1.3, 1.1.4.1.3, 1.1.5.1.3, 1.1.7.1.2, 1.1.8.1.3, 1.1.9.1.3, 1.1.10.1.3, 1.1.13.1.3, 1.1.14.1.3, 1.13.1.4, PDMC In reference to Attachment 5, CSDR Plan, USG‐4B system, should the PDMC be MEIC?

Only 1.1.7.1.2 should reference MEIC. Attachment J‐5, CSDR Attachment, will be updated to reflect the change to line 1.1.7.1.2. A redline version has been provided for the solicitation (See Amendment 0004), and a final updated version will be provided at award.

6 RFP, SOW Sec. 3.5.3.1 179 3.5.3.1

The Contractor shall conduct required testing in accordance with the approved SPA Test Plan (CDRL A037) and the approved SPA Test Procedures (CDRL A039) and submit a Security Production Assurance Report in accordance with CDRL A040.

The SPA Test Plan is CDRL A038 in Exhibit A, which does not align with SOW Sec. 3.5.3.1. Please confirm SOW is incorrect and the SPA Test Plan will be provided via CDRL A038, not A037.

SOW paragraph contains a typographical error; the SPA Test Plan will be provided under CDRL A038, and SOW paragraph 3.5.3.1 has been updated. See Amendment 0004.

7 Attachment 5, CSDR 8 (of 15) CSDR Spares 1.13.1 Which WBS should the SDP Spares be mapped to since there is no applicable line in the CSDR WBS?

The CSDR plan will be updated to include new child/sub elements under 1.13.1 Spares for SDP variants. A redline version has been provided for the solicitation (See Amendment 0004), and a final updated version will be provided at award.

RFP, SOW Section 3.4.8 & Attachment

5 CSDR

Section 6 – Cost and Software Data Reporting

The Offeror shall submit FlexFile and Quantity Data Reports (formerly DD Form 1921, Cost Data Summary Report, and DD Form 1921–1, Functional Cost‐Hour Report) as detailed in CDRLs A008 and A009 with its pricing proposal (Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal).

Referencing the Government‐approved CSDR Plan, DD Form 2794, can a .xml format of the CSDR plan be loaded in the Bidder’s Library?

What quantities are to be assumed in the proposal submission to satisfy Section L 3.4.8 Section 6 ‐ Cost and Software Data Reporting ‐ Max, Min or something else?

An .xml of the CSDR can be provided to the successful Offieror after award.

Section L 3.4.8, Section 6 has been removed ("Reserved") in Amendment

0003.

9 Attachment 5, CSDR TBD CSDR WBS N/A Where does the Government want Engineering Services CLIN 0028, CLIN 0029 and Configuration/Obsolescence CLIN 0030 reported in the CSDR for the proposal?

The CSDR plan will be updated as follows

(a) Addition of a new child/sub element – 1.3.1 Engineering Studies and Analyses – under WBS 1.3 (Systems Engineering) to capture efforts completed under CLINs 0028 and 0029.

(b) Addition of a new child/sub element – 1.3.2 Obsolescence Management – under WBS 1.3 (Systems Engineering) to capture efforts completed under CLIN 0030.

A redline version has been provided for the solicitation (See Amendment 0004), and a final updated version will be provided at award.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section B

CLIN 0001 and priced SLINs 0001AA and 0001AB

TARGET COST

TARGET PROFIT

TOTAL TARGET PRICE

CEILING PRICE

SHARE RATIO ABOVE TARGET

SHARE RATIO BELOW TARGET

Will CLIN 0001 section B need a target cost, target profit etc entered in by adding SLINs 0001AA and 0001AB together, should it be left blank or have note to reference SLINs for totals? Same question can be asked for any CLIN in section B that has SLINs.

CLIN 0001 does not need to be completed by adding SLINs 0001AA and 0001AB together. This would apply in any other instances where SLINS are identified in the solicitation.

11 Section B, Section C, Section L

(Sec.B), various (Sec.C) Pg. 164‐165, 216‐ 223, (Sec.L) Pg. 327

LOE CLINs x020, x024, x027, x028, x030

LOE CLINs

Section B, Section C and Section L provide Govt directed hours for each of the LOE CLINs identified within. On page 327 (Section L, 3.4.6), the solicitation indicates that the provided labor mixes are to be used for the purposes of evaluating proposals. Does the Government intend to award these CLINs based on total hours and dollars, or only hours?

For the LOE CLINs, the contract will include the hours specified in Section B and the successful Offeror's proposed cost and fees submitted in accordance with Section L, 3.5.3.

12 RFP+N0002421R5208 349 Section M, 3.3

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

1) How does the government define “use of key personnel (for services)”? Is the intent to cover Engineering Services like Field Service Representatives or is the government interested in names and titles of those who held key roles across the program team?

Paragraph 3.3(b) has been updated to remove the word "key" so relevancy would include use of personnel in performance of engineering services. There is no key personnel requirement in this solicitation. See Amendment 0004.

N0002421R5208 Offeror's Questions and Government Responses

Question Number: Source Document Page Number Item Excerpt of Content Question: Government Response

13 RFP+N0002421R5208 319 Section L, 3.3 VOLUME III FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Section L 3.3 states, “Additionally, the Offeror must also submit past performance information associated with at least one (1) recent and relevant prior contract effort (using the same parameters as above) for each proposed subcontractor that will perform more than 10% of the total contract effort based on the Offeror’s total proposal price.”

Which specific “parameters” would the Government like to see for the subcontractors? Is it

1) “The Offeror shall clearly describe how each prior contract effort is recent and relevant in terms of period of performance, similarity of product/service/support to this solicitation, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming” and

2) “a.The Offeror shall demonstrate its past performance in meeting production requirements, delivering orders in accordance with contract terms and adhering to processes.

b.The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to understand and resolve technical risk issues within its organizational structure, including interaction with its subcontractors and vendors.

c.As required by DFARS 215.303(c)(i), the Offeror shall provide information on its past performance demonstrating compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219‐8 and FAR 52.219‐9” and

3) “The Offeror shall discuss information on problems encountered during performance of the identified contracts and corrective actions taken.”

The parameters to be addressed include the entirety of Section L, 3.3.

14 RFP+N0002421R5208 319 Section L, 3.3 VOLUME III FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Section L 3.3 states, “The Offeror shall provide a past performance narrative not to exceed five (5) pages in length that addresses the following topics “a.The Offeror shall demonstrate its past performance in meeting production requirements, delivering orders in accordance with contract terms and adhering to processes.

b.The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to understand and resolve technical risk issues within its organizational structure, including interaction with its subcontractors and vendors.

c.As required by DFARS 215.303(c)(i), the Offeror shall provide information on its past performance demonstrating compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219‐8 and FAR 52.219‐9” Is the data in parts a‐c requested per company or per contract? For example, if a Prime lists three past performance contracts and has three subcontractors, should a‐c be answered 4 times (once for each company), or 6 times (once for each contract)?

Additionally, should a‐c be answered at the program level or the contract level?

Paragraphs a through c should be answered at the contract level.