20211018-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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

36 RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208 19 CLIN 0010

AEGIS FMS CANADA VARIANT AN/USG‐8B BUILD IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE FOR

AN/USG‐2B (CLIN 0006)

The CLIN description lists that the AN/USG‐8B should be built in accordance with the technical data package for the AN/USG‐2B (CLIN 0006). This same description is listed for all of the x010 CLINs, and therefore questions 36 and 37 also apply to CLINs 1010, 2010, 3010, and 4010.

Since 4 variants of the AN/USG‐2B system are included in CLIN x006 (8486904‐001, 8486904‐002, 8486904‐003, 8486904‐009). Which variant of the AN/USG‐2B system will the AN/USG‐8B system be based on or most similar to?

The variant is 8486904‐009.

37 RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208 19 CLIN 0010

AEGIS FMS CANADA VARIANT AN/USG‐8B BUILD IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE FOR

AN/USG‐2B (CLIN 0006)

The CLIN description lists that the AN/USG‐8B should be built in accordance with the technical data package for the AN/USG‐2B (CLIN 0006). This same description is listed for all of the x010 CLINs, and therefore questions 36 and 37 also apply to CLINs 1010, 2010, 3010, and 4010.

CLIN x006 states the “TDP Reference 8486904 (Ignore SDP Unit 39 and PAAA Unit 11 and Controller, Power Supply 8240795)”

Should the offeror also “Ignore SDP Unit 39 and PAAA Unit 11 and Controller, Power Supply 8240795” for CLINs x010?

Yes

38 RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208 351 Offer B Schedule This solicitation contains separate delivery schedules for OFFER A and OFFER B.

Page 351 states that “This solicitation contains separate delivery schedules for OFFER A and OFFER B.” Section F (Page 214) only shows one delivery schedule.

Will the Government please provide the OFFER A and OFFER B delivery schedules?

Text M‐209‐H001 WAIVER OF FIRST ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS (CONTRACTOR TESTING) ‐ BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) and all other references to "Offer B" have been removed (see Amendment 0007).

There is no OFFER B schedule, and the Section F schedule is the only delivery schedule.

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

Attachment+14+‐+Cost Price+Workbook.xlsx

NA Tab "Att 4 ‐ Spares Pricing

Excel row 115 PL8360145‐001 (Installation Kit ‐ Elec. Equip. ‐ Radio Set XCVR Redesign) and

Excel row 116 PL8423522‐001 (Test Equip., Special Purpose

AN/USG‐3B)

Are these 2 part numbers typos? PL8360145‐001 and PL8423522‐001 are documents and would not have a unit price.

No, these are not part numbers and are documents. The items are intended to be purchased as described in the documents, and the documents should be used as a basis for determining part production scope and pricing.

40 RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208 22 CLIN 0013

AN/USG‐12B SYSTEM FFP

FMS AUSTRALIA VARIANT AN/USG‐12B BUILD IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE FOR AN/USG‐3B (CLIN

0007) Minus EFA Antenna 8360298, Transceiver 8240960, Cable Assembly 7416661 and Power Converter Assembly 8360197

The CLIN description lists that the AN/USG‐12B should be built in accordance with the technical data package for the AN/USG‐3B (CLIN 0007) minus EFA Antenna 8360298, Transceiver 8240960, Cable Assembly 7416661 and Power Converter Assembly 8360197.

In addition to the items listed above, should the contractor also “(IGNORE SDP UNIT 4)” as stated in the CLIN 0007 description? If so, is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to propose an AN/USG‐3B system (8360086‐001) minus the EFA Antenna 8360298, Transceiver 8240960, Cable Assembly 7416661, Power Converter Assembly 8360197, and SDP‐S for CLINs x013?

Yes to both questions.

41 RFP, Section B. 22 CLIN 0013 AN/USG‐12B Systems definition

CLIN 0013 indicates that the AN/USG‐12B System is to be built IAW the TDP, minus the EFA, Transceiver, Cable Assy and Power Converter Assy.

Additionally, the CSDR (Attachment 5) has WBS elements assigned to the EFA and Transceiver assemblies.

Can you please confirm which LRU’s are to be delivered?

The SDP rack is the only component to be priced and delivered under this production contract for the 12B production system CLIN. The 12B SDP will be delivered under CLIN 0019. CSDR WBS inputs related to the 12B EFA and Transceiver assemblies are not required.

42 Section C, Para. 3.4.1.1 176 Referenced checklists within the Technical Review Manual The FCA Checklist (Para. 3.4.1.1), PCA Checklist (3.4.1.2) and PRR (3.4.2) Checklist are referenced to be contained within the Technical Review Manual (TRM). Can the government confirm that the Checklist(s) are one and the same as the Entrance/Exit criteria and/or the Appendix C contained within the TRM?

The checklists referenced are not one and the same as the TRM Entrance/Exit criteria or Appendix C.

Section B, CLIN 0010, 1010, 2010, 3010, 4010

Pgs. 3, 45, 71, 97, 123 N/A AN/USG‐8B System definition Description indicates AN/USG‐8B build in accordance with TDP for AN/USG‐2B, which includes an SDP.

However, the description also references CLIN 006, which indicates SDP is not required. Can you clarify is an SDP is required under this CLIN?

No. The SDP component will be ordered under CLIN 0019 for each FMS variant as required.

Section B, CLIN 0011, 1011, 2011, 3011, 4011

Pgs. 4, 46, 72, 98, 124 N/A AN/USG‐11B System definition Description indicates AN/USG‐11B build in accordance with TDP for AN/USG‐3B, which includes an SDP.

However, the description also references CLIN 007, which indicates SDP is not required. Can you clarify is an SDP is required under this CLIN?

No. The SDP component will be ordered under CLIN 0019 for each FMS variant as required.

Section B, CLIN 0013, 1011, 2011, 3011, 4011

Pgs. 5, 47, 73, 99, 126 N/A AN/USG‐12B System definition Description indicates AN/USG‐12B build in accordance with TDP for AN/USG‐3B, which includes an SDP.

However, the description also references CLIN 007, which indicates SDP is not required. Can you clarify is an SDP is required under this CLIN?

No. The SDP component will be ordered under CLIN 0019 for each FMS variant as required.

46 RFP, SOW Sections 167, 314, 171, 211 RFP/SOW ‐ Quality Standards

Various References via RFP

1) Section C, 2.2, Non‐Gov. and Commercial Stds and Section E, 52.246‐11, Higher‐Level Contract Quality Requirement (Dec 2014)

2) Section L, 3.1.1.1 Element 1 Production Capabilities

3) Section C, 3.2.8, QA

4) Section E, E‐246‐H020 QMS Requirements

Please confirm ANSI/ASQC quality requirements required for this scope as there are variations of quality requirements stated.

Contract quality requirements are defined in FAR 52.246‐11 and E‐246‐H020.

Clauses Incorporated by Full Text; C‐ 227‐H015

194 C‐227‐H015

C‐227‐H015 PROTECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF NAVY

TRADEMARKS – ALTERNATE I (NAVSEA) (JAN 2021)

The RFP language as stated via C‐227‐H015 PROTECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF NAVY TRADEMARKS – ALTERNATE I (NAVSEA) (JAN 2021) differs from the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 5227, Subpart 5227.90 – TRADEMARK RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS and approved guidance released via the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (DASN) memorandum for NMCARS Trademark Language. In addition, the RFP language is not the current cost neutral version NAVSEA 025 has incorporated as part of their current Trademark Term & Condition guidance.

Will there be an update to the RFP to include the below paragraph as adopted by the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 5227, Subpart 5227.90?

"The contractor shall notify the contracting officer at least 30 days before asserting rights in, or filing an application to register, any one of the Designation(s) in any jurisdiction within the United States. Any such notification shall be in writing and shall identify the Designation(s) (including the word(s), name, symbol, or design), provide a statement as to its intended use(s) in commerce, and list the particular classes of goods or services in which registration will be sought.”

C‐227‐H015 as listed in the solicitation is the applicable text but has been updated to the July 2021 version. See Amendment 0007.

48 Section F 214 of 351 Delivery Date “16 mths. ADC” Supply chain quotes are showing long lead times attributed to various reasons, including global economy constraints. Some of these components are source‐controlled drawings. Does the Government plan to mitigate this potential risk to the contract requirements?

Yes. The Government will work with the Contractor to develop appropriate solutions and risk mitigation approaches regarding component lead times on a case by case basis.

49 Section C, Para. 3.2.10 171 Required security clearance for all contract personnel

Could the government clarify the definition of “performing work under”, or if there are any exceptions to the requirement that all personnel working the contract are required to have a final SECRET security clearance?

For example, would personnel working in support functions or in lower level manufacturing positions, who don’t need access to classified material, still need to maintain a final SECRET clearance?

Personnel performing work under the contract that do not require access to classified material do not need to maintain a final SECRET clearance.

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

50 SOW, Section C 1.0 167 SOW & Attachment 4, Spares List

1.0 Scope This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the efforts

required for the manufacture, assembly, modification, test, and repair of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Transmission Processing Set (CETPS) inclusive of all CEC hardware and the Signal Data Processor (SDP) as defined in the Technical Data Package (TDP), provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI), and as referenced in the CEC System Configuration List, provided as GFI. This does not include production of the Planar Array Antenna Assembly (PAAA), Antenna Environmental Control Unit (AECU), or the Shipboard Active Antenna (SBAA), but may include repair of these items.

The Attachment 4, Spares List requires unit pricing for the production of a SBAA, however, SOW Section 1.0, as referenced above, excludes production of the SBAA. Will the Government please clarify the scope requirement?

Production of complete SBAAs is not required under this contract. Only select SBAA parts as listed in the Spares List will be procured, as needed.

51 SOW 174

SOW 3.3.2 Obsolescence Management (CLINs 0030, 1030, 2030, 3030, and 4030)

"...The Contractor shall collaborate with the CEC Design Agent contractor, Government Personnel, and Program Office representatives for obsolescence management in accordance with paragraph 3.3…."

Section 3.3.2 states "...The Contractor shall collaborate with the CEC Design Agent contractor, Government Personnel, and Program Office representatives for obsolescence management in accordance with paragraph 3.3…."

Is the responsibility of the resultant contract only reporting of obsolescence issues and will the CEC Design Agent or the Program Office be responsible for implementation?

In accordance with the Configuration Management Plan, no, the responsibility of the resultant contract is not only reporting of obsolescence issues. In addition, the resultant contract is also responsible for identifying or developing a form, fit, and function solution and implementation via a Class II ECP.

52 SOW, 3.3.2 174

SOW 3.3.2 Obsolescence Management (CLINs 0030, 1030, 2030, 3030, and 4030)

"... At a minimum, the Contractor shall evaluate the following options …."

“…At a minimum, the Contractor shall evaluate the following options technology refresh through product migration to a new product (with either the same or increased functionality or capability), Life of Type Buy (LTB) from the OEM and/or procuring the obsolete item from a third‐party source. The Contractor shall initiate actions to resolve obsolescence management issues with sufficient lead‐time to preclude impact to Government delivery requirements (including production and fleet requisitions) while meeting the other requirements of this SOW.”

We interpret 3.3.2 to mean, notify only. Does "initiate actions to resolve" imply reporting only and will the Government be responsible for supporting additional cost and/or schedule relief, depending on the resultant solution? If not, please clarify.

"Initiate actions to resolve" does not imply reporting only. The Government will be responsible for supporting additional cost and/or schedule relief, if required, depending on the resultant solution.

53 Exhibit A, CDRL A004 4 A004

BLK 13 INTEGRATED BASELINE REVIEW AND REVISIONS

MONTHLY

This CDRL makes mention of an Integrated Baseline Review, IBR. Will there be an IBR associated with this contract? It is not mentioned in the SOW or RFP.

No. The A004 CDRL has been modified to include a DiD and instructions applicable to non‐EVM contracts and related IMSs. CDRLs have been updated. See Amendment 0009.

CDRL A004 deliverable title has changed so SOW paragraph 3.2.3 has been updated. See Amendment 0009.

54 SOW, Section C & Exhibit A 168

3.2.3 Schedule Management &

CDRL A004

The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and submit an Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report

(IPMDAR)…

The RFP does not include in the SOW the EVMS DFARS clauses, but does include IPMDAR in SOW Paragraph

3.2.3 and CDRL A004 references DI‐MGMT‐81861B NOT 1.

We recommend removing the DID reference DI‐MGMT‐81861B from A004 because DFARS 252.234‐7001 or 252.234‐7002 for Earned Value is not referenced via the SOW. Additionally, we recommend removing the Integrated Baseline Review and Revisions Monthly requirements from Block 13 of the CDRL.

There is no EVM in this contract. The A004 CDRL has been modified to include a DiD and instructions applicable to non‐EVM contracts and related IMSs. CDRLs have been updated. See Amendment 0009.

55 Exhibit A, CDRL list Various Various Acronyms used in Exhibit to denote the date of 1st submission for various CDRLs.

Will you please clarify the meaning of these acronyms used in Exhibit A, the DD Form 1423 document describing the CDRLs and their due dates?

DATC (CDRLs A001, A002, A003, A004, A005, A006, A007, A015, A016, A018, A019, A021, A022, A026, A027, A028, A029, A030, A032, A038, A039, A040) DAC CDRL A004, Box 16, BLK 12 note.

Although not stated explicitly in the SOW, contract or Exhibit A, we are assuming that DARP is “days after reporting period”. Please confirm.

Also, the delivery dates of the Security Production assurance test plan, procedure and report (A038, A039, A040) appear to be inconsistent, as they are all due on the same day 30 DATC, including the subsequent submission of the test report, A040.

Further, A046 has a frequency of “ONETIME”, but subsequent submissions are stated to be due “QTRLY”.

Please clarify the frequency of this CDRL.

Recommend clarifying the delivery dates of these CDRLs.

DARP Number of business days after reporting period DATC Number of business days after test completion DAC Number of business days after contract award

CDRL A004, Box 16, BLK 12 note For the post‐award conference timeframe see text C‐242‐H002 (Post Award Meeting).

Corrections to applicable CDRLs have been made. See Amendment 0009.

56 Section B 3 of 351 and CLIN 0001 Nomenclature

CLIN 0001AA AN/USG‐2B ‐ PL8486904‐009 PROCESSING SET,

COOPERATIVE

ENGAGEMENT TRANSMISSION, AN/USG‐2B – AEGIS (ECP 596,

NTDS ELIMINATION)

We respectfully recommend the following update to the RFP Section B Table for CLIN 0001AA

AN/USG‐2B ‐ PL8486904‐009 PROCESSING SET, COOPERATIVE

ENGAGEMENT TRANSMISSION, AN/USG‐2B – AEGIS (ECP 596, NTDS ELIMINATION)

(IGNORE SDP UNIT 39 AND PAAA UNIT 11 AND Controller, Power Supply 8240795)

Concur with the recommended change. SLIN 0001AA has been updated. See Amendment 0009.

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section F

214 Delivery Information CLIN DELIVERY 0006 16 mths. AOE Section F states all units ordered per CLIN are due in 16 or 12 months (depending on CLIN). As an example, the maximum quantity of units that could be ordered against CLIN 0018 is 120, is it the Government's intention that all 120 units are due 12 months after contract award?

No, it is expected that quantities ordered for all product variants in the solicitation would be delivered at a maximum rate of 10 units per month. The solicitation has been updated to include the following in Section F, "Quantities ordered for all product variants may be delivered at a maximum rate of 10 units per month." See Amendment 0009.

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

RFP N00024‐21‐R‐5208

Section C, 3.5.3.3. 180

System Final Acceptance Test

(SFAT)

The Contractor shall perform System Final Acceptance Testing (SFAT), in accordance with the Government approved Test Plan, Acceptance Test Plan (CDRL A035). For each CEC System or lowest replaceable unit (LRU) produced, modified, or repaired, the Contractor shall develop a System Final Acceptance Test procedure in accordance with CDRL A036. The Contractor shall conduct a System Final Acceptance Test in accordance with the Government approved SFAT ATP to demonstrate the system is fully functional and is ready for final delivery. LRUs are defined in the Spares List, provided as GFI. The SFAT shall be conducted using a Government approved outside range.

Section 3.5.3.3 of the Statement of Work states that the Contractor shall develop a System Final Acceptance Test procedure for each CEC System or lowest replaceable unit (LRU) produced, modified, or repaired.

Additionally, in section 3.5.3.3, that the LRUs are defined in the Spares List, provided as GFI and that the SFAT shall be conducted using a Government approved outside range. As we did not see any identification on Attachment 4 ‐ Spares List of which spares items are considered LRUs and therefore would be subject SFAT, is it the Government's intention for the Contractor to perform SFAT on all items included in the Attachment 4 ‐ Spares List? Would all items that are subject to SFAT be required to be validated using an outside range, i.e.

over‐the‐air testing?

We recommend that section 3.5.3.3 is updated to state that "The Contractor shall perform System Final Acceptance Testing (SFAT), in accordance with the Government approved Test Plan, Acceptance Test Plan (CDRL A035). For each CEC System (CLINs 0001AA, 0002AA, 0003AA, x006, x007, x008, x009, x010, x011, x012 and x013 where 'x' represents the base year and option years 1 ‐ 4), the Contractor shall develop a System Final Acceptance Test procedure in accordance with CDRL A036. The Contractor shall conduct a System Final Acceptance Test in accordance with the Government approved SFAT ATP to demonstrate the system is fully functional and is ready for final delivery. The SFAT shall be conducted using a Government approved outside range. The Contractor shall notify the Government at least thirty (30) days prior to conducting any SFAT event so that Government witnesses, identified by the COR, may witness each SFAT event. The Contractor shall deliver a Test/Inspection Report, Acceptance Test Report in accordance with CDRL A037. The report shall include results of the SFAT, descriptions of any faults or failures encountered during testing, and how each was resolved.

Paragraph 3.5.3.3 has been updated. See Amendment 0009.

Also, all items that are subject to SFAT will be required to be validated using an outside range.

59 SOW, Section C 178, 179 Section C, 3.5

3.5 Detailed Tasks Manufacture, Assembly, and Testing (CLINs

0006‐0019, 1006‐1019, 2006‐2019, 3006‐3019, 4006‐4019)

SOW Paragraph 3.5, Detailed Tasks Manufacture, Assembly, and Testing lists the following CLINs (CLINs 0006‐ 0019, 1006‐1019, 2006‐2019, 3006‐3019, 4006‐4019) as applicable to all subsections.

We recommend subsection 3.5.3.3 System Final Acceptance Testing (SFAT) be limited to the System production CLINs (0006‐0013, 1006‐1013, 2006‐2013, 3006‐3013, 4006‐4013).

Paragraph 3.5.3.3 has been updated. See Amendment 0009.