20211005-Bidders Question-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 referece 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.

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.

15 Attachment 14 Cost Price Workbook Stepladder Pricing tab Table 6 USMC AN‐USG/4B CEC System

The stepladder pricing ranges for Table 6 (4B) are disadvantageous to the government.

Table 6 requires quantity ranges (e.g. 1‐3). Ranges may not align with vendor price breaks. Ranges can also force a vendor to use the worst case scenario pricing of Qty1 for the entire range of Qty 1‐3, thus making Qty 3, three times more expensive than necessary. In order to ensure the best price per quantity, would the government consider eliminating ranges and instead use individual quantities? For clarity, a sample table is provided below.

No; please use the tables provided in the solicitation and provide inputs in that format.

16 RFP, Section L 315 3.1.2.1 ELEMENT 1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN Please confirm that the Program Management Plan, draft Risk/Opportunity Management Plan, Configuration Management Plan and the draft Quality Assurance Program Plan, which do not count against page limits, should be provided as stand‐alone documents in appendices of Volume I.

The Program Management Plan, draft Risk/Opportunity Management Plan, Configuration Management Plan, and the draft Quality Assurance Program Plan, should be provided as stand‐ alone documents in appendices of Volume I, and will not be included in the page count. Section L, paragraphs 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 have been updated accordingly. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L

Proposal Structure, format and page counts

Offerors shall organize proposal content sections using index pages or tabbed index divider pages with clear cross‐referencing to the table of contents.

As this is an electronic submission, are index pages or tabbed index divider pages required? If so, please provide detail on how the Government expects to see these delivered in this electronic submission.

Request the RFP Section L be updated to remove "using index pages or tabbed index divider pages" and add cross‐reference index tables as noted in previous questions.

Section L, 2.1 Proposal Structure, Format, and Page Counts has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L

311 Page Size and Format NA

Section L has no reference to requiring a list of figures but requires every figure to be numbered.

Request the RFP Section L be updated to state that should a list of figures be provided, it will not be included in the page count.

Section L, 2.1 Proposal Structure, Format, and Page Counts has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L 311 Page Size and Format NA

Section L has no reference to requiring a list of tables but requires every figure to be numbered.

Request the RFP Section L be updated to state that should a list of tables be provided, it will not be included in the page count.

Section L, 2.1 Proposal Structure, Format, and Page Counts has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

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

20 RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208 310

Proposal Structure, format and page counts

NA

Given the extensive cross‐volume referencing required, Offeror recommends adding cross reference index tables to each volume to support Government reviewers?

Request the RFP Section L be updated to state that, should a cross reference table be provided, it will not be included in the page count.

Section L, 2.1 Proposal Structure, Format, and Page Counts has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L 311 Electronic Versions of Proposals

All information relating to contract cost or pricing data shall be included only in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Proposal Volume. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL

OFFERORS INCLUDE CONTRACT COST AND PRICING DATA IN

VOLUMES I through III. In the event that cost and pricing data are included in Volumes I through III, that data will be excluded from the evaluation.

"All information relating to contract cost or pricing data shall be included only in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Proposal Volume."

Request the Government clarify the language in Sec L, 2.2 Electronic Versions of Proposals, to allow Offerors to submit cost or pricing data in Volume V where required (Section B and Supplement A‐1 ‐ Technical Data Package (TDP) Option Selection Worksheet

Section L, 3.5 Volume V ‐ SF 33/Completed Contract, 3.5.3 Solicitation Sections B through I, instructs Offerors to submit Sections B through I with all appropriate information completed which would inlcude the relevant cost information to be entered in Section B. Additionally, Section 3.5.4 Solicitation Section J, instructs Offerors to provide completed exhibits and attachments which would include the Supplement A1‐Technical Data Package (TDP) Option Selection Worksheet.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L.2.5

312 Major Subcontract Proposals

For the purposes of this solicitation, major subcontractors are defined as any cost‐reimbursement subcontractor proposed to perform 5% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, X030. However, where otherwise minor subcontractors cumulatively perform more than 10% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, X030, all such subcontractors performing under cost‐reimbursable arrangements are considered major subcontractors and must propose as such. All subcontractors that do not meet the definition of major subcontractor are minor subcontractors.

Can the Government provide clarification as to the definition of a major subcontractor? There appears to be a conjunction missing in this section, and as currently written provides conflicting definitions.

Should this paragraph be written as (A) or (B)?

(A) Major subcontractors are defined as any cost‐reimbursable subcontractor proposed to perform 5% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, or X030. However, where otherwise minor subcontractors cumulatively perform more than 10% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, and X030, all such subcontractors performing under cost‐reimbursable arrangements are considered major subcontractors and must propose as such. All subcontractors that do not meet the definition of major subcontractor are minor subcontractors.

or

(B) Major subcontractors are defined as any cost‐reimbursable subcontractor proposed to perform 10% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, and X030. All subcontractors that do not meet the definition of major subcontractor are minor subcontractors.

Section L, 2.5 Major Subcontract Proposals has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L.2.5 Page 312 Major Subcontract Proposals

Major subcontractors are defined as any cost‐reimbursement subcontractor proposed to perform 5% or more of the total hours under CLINs X020, X024, X027, X028, X030

Attachment J‐13 identifies 3,000 annual hours under CLIN X027; 2,460 annual hours under CLIN X020; and 7,000 annual hours under CLIN X028.

As the solicitation is currently written, a major subcontractor would be any cost‐reimbursable subcontractor performing 123 annual hours under CLIN X020, 150 annual hours under CLIN X027, or 350 annual hours under

CLIN X028.

Please clarify the Government's intent and definition of major and minor subcontractor. What is the threshold of hours by CLIN which would classify a subcontractor as major or minor? What is the threshold of hours across CLINx X020, X024, X027, X028, and X030 which would classify a subcontractor as major or minor?

The current thresholds under CLIN X020, CLIN X027, and CLIN X028 appears to be in conflict with the Government's stated intent for both minor and major subcontractors. Under typical procurements, subcontractors with less than 10,000 annual hours would be classified as minor subcontractors.

Section L, 2.5 Major Subcontract Proposals has been updated. See Amendment 0005.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L.3.4.6

327 Engineering Services Skill Mix

NOTE The Offeror shall provide a mapping of any company‐ specific labor categories it, or one of its Subcontractors, proposes to these Government labor categories and functional categories. This mapping shall include a description, similar in detail to the Government labor categories and functional categories, of the requirements/qualifications associated with each company‐specific labor category contained in the Offeror’s proposal, including company‐specific labor categories proposed by subcontractors.

The minimum requirements for Education and Years of Experience have been identified for all Labor Categories in Attachment J‐13. There are no minimum requirements or descriptions provided in the solicitation for the functional categories.

Can the Government confirm that there are no minimum requirements or descriptions related to the functional categories beyond the job titles (e.g., production planning, program finance, program management)?

The labor mix requrements are described in the "ES CLINS Definitions" tab. These definitions apply to all tabs in the workbook. Other than what is specified in the ES CLINS Definitions tab, there are no minimum requirements or descriptions related to the functional categories beyond the job titles (e.g., production planning, program finance, program management).

25 Exhibit A (CDRL List) and SOW Exhibit A CDRLs A013, A014 on pages 16 and 17.

RFP page 170.

A013 and A014, SOW paragraph 3.2.7

The Contractor shall coordinate, schedule, prepare, conduct, facilitate, and participate in reviews, meetings and conferences specified and complete Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes in accordance with CDRL A013 and Presentation Material in accordance with CDRL A014 for each meeting specified in this SOW.

Do CDRLs A013 (meeting minutes) and A014 (presentation slides) apply only to the Post Award Kickoff Meeting (SOW 3.2.7.1) and CEC Quarterly Program Reviews (SOW 3.2.7.3)? Otherwise, monthly or weekly meetings described in 3.2.7.3 and 3.2.7.4 would cause some overlapping periods of post‐meeting minutes (5 business days after) and pre‐meeting presentation material (14 working days prior) between one meeting and the next.

Also, delivering slides 14 business days prior to a weekly or monthly meeting will likely result in inefficiencies.

Recommend clarification that A013 and A014 apply only to meetings in SOW 3.2.7.1 (Post Award Kickoff Meeting) and 3.2.7.2 (CEC Quarterly Program Reviews).

Section 3.2 subparagraphs apply to all CLINS therefore A013 and A014 apply to all meetings.

26 Attachment 3 2 19 Acceptance Test Procedure for the Cooperative Engagement Does this test procedure pertain to the End‐to‐End Cooperative Engagement SFAT? No.

27 Section B, CLIN 0001AA 3 N/A First Article Unit for the AN/USG‐2B Is the SDP to be included within this FAU? SLINs 0002AA, and 0003AA explicitly state the SDP is not required. SDP FAU will be ordered under CLIN 0004 for each FAU variant as required.

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

28 RFP, Section L 314 3.1.1.1 Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 9 Can the government provide the reference document which was used to define Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 9 achievement (i.e. AS6500, DoD User Guide, or MRL Deskbook). Alternatively, can the Manufacturing Management Program SAE AS6500 be utilized to demonstrate compliance to MRL 9 requirements?

AS6500 was used as the reference document, and the Manufacuring Management SAE AS6500 may be used to demonstrate compliance to MRL 9 requirements.

29 SOW 173

3.3 Detailed Tasks Configuration, Obsolescence, and Technical Data Management (CLINs 0030, 0031, 1030, 1031, 2030, 2031, 3030, 3031, 4030, 4031)

"The Contractor shall provide changes to the production TDP baseline to the Design Agent for incorporation in the performance baseline."

Per SOW section 3.3, "The Contractor shall provide changes to the production TDP baseline to the Design Agent for incorporation in the performance baseline."

Please describe the differences between the "Production TDP baseline" that the Production contractor will maintain and the "Performance baseline" the DAES contractor will maintain.

The "Production TDP baseline" is the CEC baseline for production Build To Print (BTP). The Performance baseline represents the "product structure" baseline for system performance ‐ maintanined by the Design Agent (DA). As changes occur in production (e.g. DMSMS) that affect the BTP baseline these changes shall be provided to the DA for incorporation in the performance baseline.

30 SOW 178 of 351 SOW Sections 3.5.1, 3.6.1.2

“…The Contractor shall submit a Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) in accordance with CDRL A042 to report failures identified during production, component, sub‐assembly, or system testing.”

SOW sections 3.5.1 and 3.6.1.2 both specify FRACAS is to be conducted and CDRL A042 to be submitted for both production and repairs. Is it the Government's intent that the resultant contract will be conducting failure analysis and reporting on both Production and Repair items, or Repair items only?

Failure analysis and reporting will apply to both Production and Repair items.

31 SOW & Exhibit A 168 of 351 SOW Section 3.2.3 “The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and submit an Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report

(IPMDAR)…”

Does the IPMDAR requirement apply to the FFP CLINs? No.

Exhibit A – CDRL List, CDRL A018 – Program Protection Implementation Plan

Exhibit A, page 21 of 49.

DID page 1

CDRL A018, Program Protection Implementation Plan, with DID DI‐

ADMN‐81306

DI‐ADMN‐81306 Description/Purpose This plan outlines and defined the contractor’s implementation of the Government developed Program Protection Plan (PPP)

Proper planning to draft the Program Protection Implementation Plan CDRL would be aided by reading the Program Protection Plan. Is it possible to receive a copy of the Government developed Program Protection Plan for CEC?

Recommend providing the CEC PPP.

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

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L.3.1.2.3 Section L.3.4 Section L.3.5.4

Volume 1, Factor 2, Element 3 Volume IV, Factor 5, Section 5 Volume V, Section J, ATT J‐6

3.1.2.3 ELEMENT 3 SMALL BUSINESS

Section 5 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Attachment J‐6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (formatted IAW FAR 52.219 requirements) (Offeror to propose)

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be discussed in Volume I, Factor 2 Management Approach, Volume IV Section 5, and Volume V Section J.

Will the Government allow the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted once as part of Volume V and referenced in Volume I and Volume IV?

No. Offerors shall address all requirements of Section L, 3.1.2.3 Element 3 Small Business; Section L, 3.4.7 Section 5 ‐ Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and Section L, 3.5.4 Attachment J‐6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (formatted IAW FAR 52.219 requirements)(Offeror to propose) as specified in the solicitation.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section L.2.4 Section L.3.4.1

Section L Proposal Submission Volume IV Cost or Pricing Data

The Government requests one (1) electronic copy of the Offeror’s complete proposal to be sent through the DoD SAFE

Each Offeror is required to submit the Cost/Price Proposal Volume separately from the other volumes.

Section L.2.4 appears to be in contradiction to Section L.3.4.1 in regard to the number of DoD Safe submissions expected.

Can the Government please clarify its intention for the number of final submission uploads to DoD Safe?

Section L, 2.4 requests one (1) electronic copy of the Offeror's complete proposal to be sent through DoD SAFE. Section L, 2.2 states that each volume shall be submitted as an independent file.

35 RFP, Section C 197 N/A

C‐243‐H003 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT (NAVSEA) (JAN

2019)

Can the Government identify the extent to which the EIA‐649‐1 applies to clause C‐243‐H003 Configuration Management, and more specifically Configuration Management relative to ECPs. Additionally, Section L (Pg.

314) indicates that the offeror shall demonstrate its CM process in compliance with ISO 9001 or ANSI EIA‐649‐1 standards. Does compliance to ISO 9001 also satisfy clause C‐243‐H003?

EIA‐649‐1 applies to ECPs, but not to text C‐243‐H003. Compliance with ISO 9001 does not satisfy text C‐243‐H003.