JS-1 Bidders Questions with Responses 06092025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 74 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Integrated Combat System (ICS) MK 6 MOD X Full Rate Production (Foundry Hardware Factory)
- Solicitation number
- N0002425R5200
About this file
This file contains Bidders Questions with Responses for the Navy's Integrated Combat System (ICS) MK 6 MOD X Full Rate Production (Foundry Hardware Factory) draft Request for Proposal (RFP). The document comprises 234 questions and corresponding government responses covering various technical, contractual, and operational aspects of a planned single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract valued around $1.5B for five years.
Key details include the procurement of a hardware and software catalog, cloud infrastructure software engineering, hardware component procurement, and development of a production portal with Impact Level 5 (IL5) security. The contract aims to replace legacy hardware obsolescence management processes, with a focus on infrastructure-as-a-service software development, cybersecurity compliance, and technical protection architecture. Potential contractors will need to demonstrate capabilities in system engineering, configuration management, software licensing, and support services across multiple ship platforms and laboratory environments. The draft RFP indicates the government seeks a flexible solution that can adapt to evolving technological requirements while maintaining robust security and performance standards.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| JS-1 Bidders Questions and Responses 12042024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JS-1 Bidders Questions and Responses 11202024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JS-1 Bidders Questions and Responses 11062024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N00024-25-R-5200 Draft Amendment 1.pdf | ||
| N00024-25-R-5200 Draft.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - N00024-25-R-5200 MK 6 MOD X (Foundry Hardware Factory) Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JS-1 Bidders Question Submittal Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit A - N00024-25-R-5200_DRAFT CDRL Data Package.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Responses
| Question Number: | Date Submitted: | Question Source: (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) | Page number and paragraph header from source: | Question: | Government Response: | |
| 1 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 19 | |||
| Paragraph 3.3, 3.5, 3.8 DRFP | Please confirm whether Prime Contractor will need to have access to a SCIF Facility for 3.8.11 Digital Data Management. | Prime Contractor will not require access to a SCIF Facility for 3.8.11 Digital Data Management. | ||||
| 2 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 27 | |||
| Paragraph 4.3 CLIN 003 DRFP | The Contractor shall be capable of maintaining or adjusting capacity to handle surges in demand, with no degradation of quality or delivery timeline. Will the government define what those surges may look like? | Surges in labor refer to periods of increased demand that require more workforce or resources to handle the workload. This could include examples such as, hardware factory surges, supply chain disruptions, equipment failures or maintenance, high volume testing, scaling for increased demand when a cloud service experiences a spike in usage, additional infrastructure resources and personnel may be required to ensure capacity is met. During a surge, the labor force may be adjusted to match the new requirements, such as employing temporary staff for peak times or using additional cloud resources to distribute the workload. | ||||
| 3 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 28 | |||
| Paragraph 4.4 | Paragraph 4.4 on Page 28 appears to be incorrectly numbered as Para 4.3. Please confirm this paragraph should be 4.4. | “CLIN 0004 Hardware Component Procurement; FFP” should be 4.4. | ||||
| 4 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 42 | |||
| Paragraph 4.8.1 | The government states, "A contractor hosted virtual lab (e.g., FedRAMP) shall be used as required for any controlled information, configurations, or applications which are required to be in controlled environments." Is it the Government's intention that the commercial lab be hosted in an approved cloud environment? What Impact Level (e.g., IL4 or IL5) is required for this environment? | Section 4.8.1 Option for Commercial Development and Testing Lab; FFP – Commercial lab should be IL2. Government seeks to allow industry the flexibility to efficiently develop and test HW integration into the IaaS SW management and monitoring capabilities (i.e. Foundry evolution concept), but also requires testing to ensure IaaS configuration changes accommodate &/or 'do not break' the ICS PaaS and that testing shall be done at CUI (or potentially higher if PaaS configurations include tactical SW configuration data). Additionally, complete shipset IaC configurations and/or HW lists (equipment & firmware versions), to include full models of such, shall be held as CUI or higher. | ||||
| 5 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 96 | |||
| Volume V | Page Limit for Volume V Past Performance has "See Note 2." Please confirm if this should be "See Note 3." | This should be “See Note 3”. | ||||
| 6 | 12/5/24 | Draft RFP | Page 104 | |||
| Paragraph 3.2.2.3 | In the Evaluation Criteria, the Draft RFP is missing Paragraph 3.2.2.3. Please confirm if this was intentional. | "Capacity Labor" section should be 3.2.2.3 instead of 3.2.2.4. | ||||
| 7 | 12/5/24 | Attachment 1 | General | The response to the questions in Attachment 1 are company proprietary. Will the Government treat the responses as proprietary and therefore, not publish or release that information to Industry? | The Government will treat the responses as prioprietary and no publish or release this information to Industry. | |
| 8 | 12/5/24 | Attachment 1 | Question 014 | Would the Navy please provide the drawings for the ORDALT kits? | The requirements for the ORDALT as currently designed will not be included in the RFP. | |
| 9 | 12/6/24 | Attachment 1 | General | In addition to the Attachment 1 MS Excel format, can offerors also submit our responses to the 17 questions in an MS Word document? | Yes, offerors can also submit responses to the 17 questions in an MS Word document. | |
| 10 | 12/6/24 | RFP | Pages 25,26 | |||
| Section 4.1, CLIN 0001 Hardware and Commercial/Non-Commercial Software Catalog | A software and hardware catalogue of 5,000+ parts used in MK 6 MOD X is referenced. How many suppliers are there, and what is the lowest level in a system or sub-system that includes parts in the catalogue (racks, servers, power supplies, cables, components, connectors, etc.)? | There are several suppliers across the MOD X catalog to support different ship platforms and lab sites. The suppliers cover the bare metal mechanical (enclosure, modules, rail kits), electronic payload (servers, switches, media), power system, and components from third party vendors that make up the MOD X system (Displays, Consoles, and Communications Systems). Components are tracked to the individual component (i.e., switch or server) and down to the connector and transceiver module to enable quantity and price tracking for the MOD X catalog across each ship or lab procurement. | ||||
| 11 | 12/6/24 | RFP and GFI for performance specs | Common Enclosure Requirements |
EOE Requirements FOCP Requirements IOC Requirements NPS Requirements
| Legacy CI vs. MK MOD X | Infrastructure is referenced for compute, storage, networking, Cybersecurity and AT solutions, among other functions. When will the Government provide details on features/specifications and content for each piece of infrastructure being referenced? | The Government will provide relevant data for vendors to bid on this effort. The Government's intent is to provide requirements and allow industry to propose features/specifications to meet those requirements. For reference, the Government will provide the current specifications at the time of RFP release for each relevant aspect of the overarching desired Infrastructure. | ||||
| 12 | 12/6/24 | RFP | Page 11, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications | |||
| Page 25 and following - Section C - Descriptions and Specifications | Almost all CLINS in the draft RFP are FFP, but the SOW offers limited details describing the scope of work required for Industry to be able to gauge what resources, structure, etc. are needed to perform against. When and how will more detail be released? | In an IDIQ, the level of detail regarding the scope of work, and personnel required is defined in individual task orders that accompany the IDIQ. The IDIQ establishes the general terms and conditions, including pricing, and provides the framework for future work. However, the specific details such as scope of work, deliverables, timelines, and the personnel required for each task order are outlined in the task orders issued under the IDIQ. Additional detail may be released with the issuance of a final RFP. | ||||
| 13 | 12/6/24 | RFP and GFI for performance specs | Section 4.5.4 page 30,31 and AT GFI | System security and Anti-Tamper are referenced at a high level in the draft RFP and GFI. When and how can vendors receive more detail on requirements and implementation? | More details on the requirements and implementation will be released with the final RFP. | |
| 14 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | General | What is the anticipated period of performance of the base contract? | ||
| What is the anticipated maximum value/ceiling of the base contract? | Period of performance of the base contract will be provided in final RFP. The estimated ceiling value is anticipated to be around $1.5B for 5 years. | |||||
| 15 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 2, CLIN 0002 | Will the Government clarify that this CLIN price will be a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) under which individual Delivery Orders (DOs) will be placed for procurement of Software licenses applicable to production during the DO timeframe? | This is intended to not be a NTE CLIN. Offerors should review the final RFP for additional details. | |
| 16 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 2, CLIN 0002; page 26, SOW 4.2 | Please confirm that SOW section 4.2 CDRLs are applicable at the Delivery Order (DO) level only as related to the software procured under a particular DO, to avoid duplication of effort and cost with SW Catalog CLIN 0002 and associated CDRLs. | SOW Section 4.2 CDRLs are applicable at the deliver order level. | |
| 17 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 4, CLIN 0005 | Will the Government consider having options for Task Order (TO) pricing under this CLIN as both FFP and T&M in order to accommodate the flexibility desired in section 4.5 of the SOW while maintaining the ability of non-traditional DoD contractors to serve as the Prime? | T&M is least preferred contract type. Per FAR 16.601(c), T&M contracts may be used only when it is not possible at the time of place the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. | |
| 18 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 4 CLIN 0005; page 29, SOW 4.5 | Please clarify the references to scalability in the base CLIN SOW; is it the Government's intent that this scalability be manage at the DO level? | Yes, the Government's intent that scalability be managed at the delivery/task order level. |
| 19 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 4, CLIN 0006 | What is the criteria that makes CLIN 0006 an option CLIN? How will the Government decide whether to issue a DO/TO for deployment/installation labor in a TO? Can the Government provide the timeframe within the overall contract in which this option CLIN would be exercised? Given the scale of the work to be performed under this CLIN, option exercise criteria and timeframe is essential for developing an approach to meet contract requirements. | Deployment labor may not be required at contract award which is why this CLIN is identified as an option CLIN. This labor would be funded at the time a lab or ship requires infrastructure software installed (initial or renewal software). Additional details on regarding the option exercise date will be provided in the final RFP or task order. |
| 20 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 5, CLIN 0007 | What is the criteria that makes CLIN 0007 option CLIN? How will the Government decide whether to include Product Support and Training in a TO? Can the Government provide the timeframe within the overall contract in which this CLIN would be exercised? Given the scale of the work to be performed under this CLIN, option exercise criteria and timeframe is essential for developing an approach to meet contract requirements. | Product support labor may not be required at contract award, which is why this CLIN is identified as an option. If it is determined at contract award that product support is necessary, the CLIN will be converted from an option to a requirement, and the appropriate tasking will be incorporated into the task order. Additional details on regarding the option exercise date will be provided in the final RFP or task order. |
| 21 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 5, CLIN 0008 | What is the criteria that makes CLIN 0008 an option CLIN? How will the Government decide whether to issue a DO/TO for Development and Test Labs? Can the Government provide the timeframe within the overall contract in which this option CLIN would be exercised? Given the scale of the work to be performed under this CLIN, option exercise criteria and timeframe is essential for developing an approach to meet contract requirements. | Development and test labs may not be required at contract award which is why it is identified as an option. The Government will exercise this option if/when scaling of lab resources is required to meet mission needs. Additional details regarding the option exercise date will be provided in the final RFP or task order. |
| 22 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 6, CLIN 0009 | What is the criteria that makes CLIN 0009 an option CLIN? How will the Government decide whether to issue a DO/TO for Warehousing and Storage? Can the Government provide the timeframe within the overall contract in which this option CLIN would be exercised? Given the scale of the work to be performed under this CLIN, option exercise criteria and timeframe is essential for developing an approach to meet contract requirements. | Warehousing and storage may not be required at contract award which is why this CLIN is identified as an option. The Government will exercise this option once there is a known requirement for warehousing and storage. Additional details regarding the option exercise date will be provided in the final RFP or task order. |
| 23 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 6, CLIN 0010 | What is the criteria that makes CLIN 0010 an option CLIN? How will the Government decide whether to issue a DO/TO for Special Studies? Can the Government provide the timeframe within the overall contract in which this option CLIN would be exercised? Given the scale of the work to be performed under this CLIN, option exercise criteria and timeframe is essential for developing an approach to meet contract requirements. | Special studies are included as an option CLIN to provide flexibility in addressing potential future requirements that may arise during contract performance. These studies may involve analysis, assessments, or evaluations related to system improvements, new technologies, or emerging mission needs. By structuring special studies as an option, the Government retains the ability to procure these services on an as-needed basis without committing to them at contract award. If the need for special studies is identified, the Government will exercise the option, and detailed tasking will be outlined in the applicable task order. Additional details regarding the option exercise date will be provided in the final RFP or task order. |
| 24 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 8, CLIN 0014 | What is the Period of Performance for CLIN 0014 Production Portal? | The PoP for will be identified in the final RFP or task order. |
| 25 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 9, B-227-H0001(a) Provisioning Technical Documentation | Please clarify which CDRLs and other non-CDRL deliverables would be considered Provisioning Technical Documentation (PTD) under this contract and the terms of B-227-H001. | The following CDRL Exhibits are considered PTD: A005, A012, A013, A020, A025, A043, A045, A047-A049, A051-A054, A056-A057. |
| 26 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 11-12, Section 1 Scope; page 111, Section L 2.1.1 Element 1 Sample Tasks; page 18, SOW Section 2.4 Non-Government documents | Please clarify and/or update the contradiction between references to "agile" practices and references to outdated IEEE standards. The following applicable documents need to be updated (from --> to): |
IEEE 1012a-2012 → IEEE 1012-2016
IEEE/ISO/IEC 16326-2009 → IEEE/ISO/IEC 16326:2019
IEEE 1220-2005 → IEEE/ISO/IEC 24748-4-2016
IEEE/ISO/IEC 12207-2008 → ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 The Government will provide this update in the final RFP.
| 27 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 11, Paragraph "Efforts hereunder include program management…" | The RFP lists specific ship classes and land-based sites for MK 6 MOD X deployment. Is this list exhaustive, or might the system be deployed on other platforms or in other locations in the future (e.g., new ship classes, installations of international partners)? If so, what information, if any, is available about those platforms or locations, and how should offerors consider potential future deployments in their proposals (e.g., scalability, international regulations)? | The list of ship classes provided encompasses the current planned deployments of the MK 6 MOD X system. The list may grow over time. No additional information is available at this time. However, scalability is an ongoing area of interest for the Government and interested vendors should be prepared to address approaches to meeting potential increases in scaled deliveries. |
| 28 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 14, SOW 2.3 Government Documents | Applicable documents: can the Government confirm that DoDM 8140.03 was signed 15 Feb. 2023, cancelling DoDI 8570.01M? | The Government will review and ensure the latest document is reflected in the final RFP. |
| 29 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 15, SOW 2.3 Government Documents | Applicable documents: OPNAVINST 4030.1B. Would the Government consider moving to a commercial standard in order to gain the corresponding cost savings? | The Government will continue to adhere to OPNAVINST 4030.1B and will not move to use industry standard. |
| 30 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 10-20, SOW 3.6 Personnel | Please clarify the personnel clearance requirements with respect to which parts of performance will involve access to classified materials. Will all task and delivery orders necessarily have classified requirements such that the Government anticipates that ALL contractor personnel working the scope of this contract have applicable clearances? | Mk 6 Mod X will host various combat systems, on a variety of different platforms. This means it will encompass many SCGs (Security Classification Guides) which includes, AEGIS, SSDS, and other Combat Systems. The Government is evaluating the potential of having cleared and non-cleared personnel on this contract. Details will be provided in the final RFP release. |
| 31 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 22-25, SOW 3.8 Program Management | Would the Government consider modifying the CLIN structure to include a management CLIN to capture base contract and non-recurring costs associated with SOW section 3.8 applicable to each task order? A PMO CLIN to thus be included in each TO/DO to allow the contractor to more efficiently account for the SOW 3.8 costs applicable to the performance of the other CLINs. | The Government will consider the use of a PMO CLIN. | |
| 32 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 24, SOW 3.8.11 Digital Data Management | (1) Please identify "the" Government approved digital ecosystem referenced in this section. As written, it is unclear if this system will be provided by Government or must be developed by the contractor. (2) Please clarify how this requirement/section relates to the requirements of CLIN 0014/SOW section 4.14 Production Portal. (3) Is the reference to the ecosystem in 3.8.11 the same as "a Government approved location" and "the Government approved location" referenced in SOW 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 with respect to the SW and HW catalogs? | (1) The Government approved digital ecosystem referenced is currently NSERC and per the contract, the Contractor will be given access to and required to work within that environment. The Contractors agile program management and work shall be done in a Government environment (i.e. NSERC). (2)The Portal is a complementary environment where customers and stakeholders can get access and interact with our Program. The Portal environment also needs to be at the required impact level (iL), which for most data will be iL5+. The Portal will be a contractor developed product that will reside on a Government approved location. (3) All technical data will have to reside within a Government approved location whether that is within NSERC, a contractor developed portal, or any other technical data repository. The Government will require unlimited access to technical data at all times and all locations. The "Government approved location" in section 3.8.11 and 4.1.1/4.1.2 could be the same or different locations dependent on contractor proposal and Government approval. | |
| 33 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 25, SOW 4.1 CLIN 0001 HW and SW Catalog | Does the Government have a current Hardware and Commercial/Non-Commercial Software Catalog that is currently in place and contractors can update or is the contractor to provide a greenfield solution with access to the purchasing personnel? How will the Government be providing the current Hardware and Software SKUs? Will the Government release historical pricing and purchasing partners? | Prospective Contractors, upon award, will be provided with any existing catalogs that are already in place to include HW and SW SKUs. | |
| 34 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 25, SOW 4.1 CLIN 0001 HW and SW Catalog | User access to catalog. Will the level of security/access to view certain data in the catalog vary by user group? Please clarify or define how data needs to be segregated by user group. | Yes, different stakeholders will need to be controlled with different permissions based on role. The data segregation will be an ongoing process and a collaboration between the Government and the contractor. | |
| 35 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 25; SOW 4.1.1 Software Catalog | Does the Government have an existing IL5 Software Licensing portal that is currently in use that the Government will provide access to for integration, or is this a greenfield implementation? | ||
| Will this software licensing catalog only include the greenfield MK 6 MOD X deployments or will it need to track and catalog existing fleet software licensing? | The Government procures software licensing from the Contractor. The maturity of the portal and software management inside the portal will determine if the Government will provide access or if greenfield implementation is necessary. The Government will implement the most cost-effective approach. The software licensing catalog will include MK 6 MOD X implementations only. | |||||
| 36 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 26; SOW 4.2.1-2 Software Licensing | Will the Government want to standardize on 1-year licenses for all new and renewal licenses to simplify annual task orders? | The contractor should propose the most cost-effective approach for the Government. | |
| 37 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 26, SOW 4.1.1 SW Catalog; 4.1.2 HW Catalog | What is the PI demo? Does not appear to be defined or explained elsewhere in the SOW. | Program Increment (PI) is a specific period in an agile release train during which agile teams deliver software and systems. PI demos occur at the end of the PI iteration with smaller scoped demos occurring at the end of each Sprint iteration. | |
| 38 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 26, SOW 4.1.1 SW Catalog; 4.1.2 HW Catalog | Please identify the Government approved location of the catalog hosting; as written it is unclear whether the Government is providing the location or it is to be developed by the contractor. Please clarify how this requirement/section relates to the requirements of CLIN 0014/SOW section 4.14 Production Portal. Is the reference to the ecosystem in 3.8.11 the same as "a Government approved location" and "the Government approved location" referenced in SOW 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 with respect to the SW and HW catalogs? | Please see response to question 32. The maturity of the existing portal and the HW catalog within the existing portal will determine whether this is in a Government environment or a Contractor developed environment moving forward. | |
| 39 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 25, SOW 4.1 CLIN 0001 HW and SW Catalog | Section 4.1.2 Hardware Catalog description specifies that it shall include the CI components to support delivery and sustainment of MK 6 MOD X systems. In contrast, the description of the SW catalog in section 4.1.1 does not specify a scope of the SW to be contained in the SW catalog. Please clarify the scope of the SW catalog in comparison to the scope defined for the HW catalog. | The SW catalog should contain all of the SW and SW licenses that are used in the ICS IaaS Build(s). | |
| 40 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 26, SOW 4.2 CLIN 0002 CI SW Procurement | Please clarify the "Government identified repository" is the CLIN 0001 Catalog. | The Government environment currently is NSERC. | |
| 41 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 27, 4.2.1; Commercial Initial SW Licenses; 4.2.2 Commercial License Renewal | Please clarify that the CDRLs associated with commercial license procurement (A015 and A016) are intended to be priced and delivered on a DO basis associated with particular SW Build of Materials procured under a CLIN 0002 DO. If the CDRLs are not intended to be per DO(BOM), how will the govt separate the contract price for A015 from the cost of the SW itself? | CDRLs A015 and A016 will be due in accordance with their respective Block 16 remarks. CDRLs are not separately priced and it is for the offeror to decide where the cost to provide the CDRL is captured in its proposal. | |
| 42 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 27, 4.2.1; Commercial Initial SW Licenses; 4.2.2 Commercial License Renewal | How are the SW management services listed in SOW 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 (e.g., "tracking obsolescence, renewal dates, changes to terms) different from the services to be provided under CLIN 0001 and the catalog itself? Please clarify whether the Government views this a duplication of cost/effort. | The Government will review these sections and make any necessary updates for clarity in the final RFP. | |
| 43 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 27, 4.2.1; Commercial Initial SW Licenses; 4.2.2 Commercial License Renewal | In section 4.2.2 Commercial License renewals, the SW management services are specifically tied back to the catalog (CLIN 0001). In contrast, in 4.2.1, initial SW License management is not specifically tied back to the catalog. Please clarify. | Both shall be managed and tied back to the catalog. "Initial" SW license management is used to indicate a new environment for which SW license management must occur (i.e. new ship, new lab), while renewals are for existing environments that have already had SW license procured for them and need to be maintained. | |
| 44 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 28, SOW 4.3 CLIN 0004 HW Procurement | SOW 4.3 CLIN 0004 HW Procurement should be 4.4 | This will be updated in the final RFP. | |
| 45 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 28; SOW 4.3 Hardware Component Procurement | Will the Government provide existing hardware design and current architecture build data including racks and cabling in order for the contractor to have an initial blueprint for what will need to be procured from multiple OEMs in order to have multiple platform options that will accommodate the System Performance Specification? | This will be provided as GFI with the final RFP release. | |
| 46 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 28, SOW 4.3 CLIN 0004 HW Procurement | How often will the forecast referenced be shared? "The Contractor shall hold a design review in quarter one (Q1) of the Government fiscal year (FY) to discuss forecasted changes for the next iteration of the MK 6 MOD X system or components, including any impacts to cabinet or ship interface" | Forecasted changes will be provided at least three times a year. The Program does continuous development using agile principles and this will be a requirement for the contractor under this contract. Our customer and stakeholder community require periodic reviews to be part of the acceptance, approval and decision making. The RFP will be updated as there should be 3x per year design reviews and these are associated with the ICS Program Increments (PIs). The Contractor will participate and create artifacts to support these reviews/demos. The Government is in the process of putting together a Computing Infrastructure (CI) Technical Review Action Plan (TRAP) which outlines the Program's reviews. | |
| 47 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 29, SOW 4.5.2 SRVM Matrices | Will the Government supply a sample Specification Requirements Verification Matrix to verify that all appropriate requirements are accounted for in the design and deployment testing? | Upon award, sample SRVMs can be provided to the Contractor. | |
| 48 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 30, SOW 4.5.3 Technology Refresh Roadmap | Please clarify the scope of the requirements of the "system disposal plan" referenced in SOW 4.5.3 Technology Refresh Roadmap. Does the Government intend to include HW product disposal (destruction) requirements, to include data wiping, in the contract at the Delivery Order level? Does this requirement refer to hardware products and software services stored at the contractor's facility (engineering facilities? warehouse? option CLIN labs? Ships?) reach the end or their useable service life? More information is needed to assess the Government's intent/level of effort required to meet the statement "the contractor shall implement a system disposal for use when the hardware products and software services that make up the MK 6 MOD X reach its useable service life." | When equipment reaches the end of useable service life the disposal should be in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4160.21-M Defense Materiel Disposition Manual. The requirements for labor associated with compliance with (DoDI) 4160.21-M Defense Materiel Disposition Manual will be included within each relevant delivery order. All products procured under this contract will be in compliance with this Instruction. | |
| 49 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 30, SOW 4.5.4 System Security | Please clarify the system security requirements that will apply to the contract; as written ("such as") more information is needed to determine the level of effort required to meet contract requirements. For example: The RFP specifies several cybersecurity requirements, including NIST SP 800-171, DFARS 252.204-7012, and Cybersecurity Maturity Model (CMMC). This is particularly relevant since the certification backlog is so extensive with approximately 300,000 DoD contractors in the queue. Can the Government clarify the required CMMC level for this contract or provide a timeline for when the CMMC requirement will be determined? | The Government is unable to clarify the required CMMC level for the contract until the Title 48 CFR Rule for CMMC is finalized. The Government will attempt to clarify in the final RFP if this information because available prior to RFP release. |
| 50 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 31; SOW 4.5.10 Technical Protection | Does the Government have existing documentation containing the current traced-derived requirements, infrastructure system security library, and infrastructure system security customer configuration package? Will they share current documentation with the contractors in order to help clarify the entire scope for resource allocation and estimation for this requirement? More information is required for the contractor to determine level of effort, in particular where the requirements and artifacts to be protected are generated as part of the effort itself. | There is a draft of TLR requirements derived down one level available at the Secret level. There is no current ISSL or ISSC as those will be developed by the contractor with guidance from the Government lead. The Government is currently developing a process to share documentation with contractor. |
| 51 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 31; SOW 4.5.11 Safety | Will the Government provide the current System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and Safety Assessment Reporting for the existing HW Foundry efforts as a reference in order for contractors to gauge the level of effort to meet this SSPP creation requirement and gain efficiencies in cost/effort during performance. | The contractor shall not develop their own SSPP but shall instead comply with the ICS SSPP. Compliance means the contractor will need to provide products to support the system safety analysis by providing HW specifications and design material (e.g., interfaces, drawings, etc.). The Government will evaluate providing additional information at final RFP release. |
| 52 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 31; SOW 4.5.9 ATO and 4.5.9 ATO Support | Please clarify the Government's meaning in "assist" and "support" with respect to ATO efforts. More information is needed to assess the level of effort required for these requirements. For example, will the contractor be responsible for most of the security work and documentation, with the Government providing oversight? | Government teams will create and shepherd the system through the ATO process. The contractor is responsible for artifacts, scans, diagrams, HW lists, SW lists, PPSM, control assessments, and other typical RMF documentation; in addition to their expertise and input. |
| 53 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 34; SOW C.4.5.15.4 "Environmental Qualification Testing" | Recognizing the need for cost-effective EQT and the continuous technology refresh cycle of internal rack components, would the Government consider a tailored approach that combines initial full MIL-STD-810H shock and vibration qualification of a representative rack configuration with component-level testing, FEA modeling and analysis, and targeted verification testing for subsequent component modifications? This approach seeks to minimize redundant testing while ensuring the delivered racks consistently meet shock and vibration requirements, and would be consistent with the Government's stated goals of incorporating agility and adaptability into the production process. If acceptable, can the Government provide guidance on the level of detail required for the analysis, modeling, and verification testing documentation to justify deviations from full rack-level re-testing for every component change? | The Government will consider a tailored approach. The Government is actively pursuing component level testing, analysis, and extension for any and all EQT. The Government can advise on a case-by-case basis the best case opportunities for reduced testing but there is not a general level of direction due to the variance in each component's applicability for individual testing, analysis, or extension. |
| 54 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 32; SOW 4.5.12 Problem Reporting / Resolution | Please clarify whether the Government has a current portal the ISEA uses for Fleet HW problem reporting and resolution that the contractor will integrate with, or is this requirement a greenfield effort (contractor developed)? Should this requirement be integrated into a larger ITSM requirement section to include Asset Management, Change Management, Incident Management, Knowledge Management, etc.? | Currently Fleet HW problem reporting is performed via disconnected communication paths, including Naval Message and email. The Contractor may propose their approach for a holistic accounting of the ITSM process. |
| 55 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 35; SOW 4.5.16 "Configuration Management" | The RFP specifies the need for an automated Configuration Management (CM) program. Can the Government provide details on any preferred tools or platforms for automated CM, required integrations with existing Navy CM systems, or specific data exchange formats? | The Foundry utilizes tools that are hosted in DoD Impact Level (IL)2 and/or IL5 environments. The Foundry utilizes a version of Jira and Confluence in both the IL2 and IL5 environments. DoD ILs are used to categorize information systems and the information that is stored and processed based on the potential impact in the case the information system or the associated information were to be compromised. The Foundry will perform all work in compliance with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) publication of the Department of Defense (DoD) Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (CC SRG) based on the guidance of the Federal Information Systems Management Act (FISMA) and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-37. |
Tools - Confluence (primary document repository), Jira (agile PM), Cameo (Model Based System Engineering) 56 12/13/24 Draft RFP Page 35; SOW 4.5.15.6 "Distributed Production Test" Page 37; SOW 4.6 "CLIN 0006 Option for Compute Infrastructure Software Deployment and Hardware/Software Install Support; FFP"
| Page 98; Section L.3.2: "VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL" | Please clarify the contractor's responsibility for integrating hosted software on the MK 6 MOD X platform. Without more information, contractors cannot define and estimate production and installation schedules and properly respond to the sample tasks. Will the Government please specify a) the contractor's role in supporting and/or installing hosted software prior to delivery b) contractor effort to support hosted software during shipboard installations. | The Contractor is responsible for continuously developing an IaaS Build release three times per year and continuously developing the MK MOD X CI system. This CLIN, upon funding, is to provide location support (i.e. shipboard, shore-based, to labs, etc.) for IaaS install until functioning and the system is operational. The location support may also be for HW troubleshooting, etc. The Government intent is for the hosted software to be maintained and integrated by the Government provided Platform-as-a-Service. The labor for integration may vacillate if there are recurring issues but a successfully developed IaaS build should not affect the integration of the hosted software. | ||||
| 57 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 37; SOW 4.5.16.6 NOC Support | Please clarify whether there is an existing NOC for the Combat System that we must integrate with today, or is this a greenfield requirement for a NOC? Will the Help Desk also provide maintenance and support for the Combat Systems Software as well as the HW components of the system? | There is not an existing NOC that must be integrated with today. The NOC detailed in this SOW is the Government's desire to rapidly replicate, assess and fix identified issues in deployed configurations, as well as maintain configuration management of system changes made locally on deployed systems and/or aid in making network or system configuration changes necessary to allow rapid adaptation to data input/output requirements. The help desk requirement on this contract would not be for the support or maintenance of combat system software. | |
| 58 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 37; SOW 4.6 Compute Infrastructure Software Deployment and Hardware/Software Install Support | Please clarify the Government will generate clearly defined service offerings and a Statement of Work (SOW) for each installation of the MK 6 MOD X system on a DO by DO basis? | The Government's intent is to have clearly defined requirements in each Task Order for execution. | |
| 59 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 38; SOW 4.7.1 "Technical Data and Computer Software Data" | The RFP requires extensive technical data and Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) artifacts, referencing MIL-STD-31000B for guidance. To ensure complete alignment with Government expectations and avoid potential rework, can the Government clarify if there are any specific requirements or preferences for MBSE model development that go beyond, or deviate from, the recommendations in MIL-STD-31000B? For example, does the Government have preferred modeling languages (e.g., SysML, UML), required diagrams, levels of detail (e.g., system, subsystem, component), or specific modeling conventions or guidelines? If so, please provide details. If not, please confirm that adherence to best practices within the framework of MIL-STD-31000B is sufficient. | The intent of MBSE for the program is to maintain configuration data in such a manner, and to the degree necessary, that stakeholders across the system lifecycle are able to leverage a single source of system information that is kept up to date and appended/extended as additional information requirements are identified. The model is intended to be Government-owned and "golden configuration" maintained on Government provisioned systems to mitigate stakeholder access issues. Add'l note: Government is using Cameo/SysML for systems engineering modeling and it is intended that the contractor will provide direct contribution to the system of systems engineering in this format. The Government is willing to assess additional modeling options enabling efficiency and effectiveness of system communication to stakeholders. | |
| 60 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 38; SOW 4.7.1 "Technical Data and Computer Software Data" | Recommendation to break out Product Support and Training into separate CLINs for clarity. As written the "product support" sections represent requirement for the design documentation and the data repository for the technical solution, which are not inherently training documentation in intent or nature. | The Government will consider separating this requirement into two CLINs. | |
| 61 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 39; SOW 4.7.1 "The contract shall coordinate with other hardware vendors…" | Please clarify the requirement to coordinate with other hardware vendors supporting the ICS program and ensure similar data is stored in the approved Government location. It is unclear what "coordinates" mean in this context and how the requirement to coordinate will be evaluated as met. For example: Is the intent that the contractor is responsible for where other vendors store similar data? Will the Government define "similar"? | As the contractor that provides the Portal and leads the Distributed PTF solution, the contractor will be required to ensure that the other Mod X Contractors' data is properly included in the Portal. Additionally, the contractor will be required to develop PTF test carts for all other contractors and shall lead the DPTF solution for all other contractors that are part of our program. | |
| 62 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | page 41 SOW 4.7.3.2 Consolidation of HW Maintenance Training Materials | Please clarify "all hardware maintenance training materials and resources" that are to be delivered to the SESI. Please confirm that this is limited to CDRLS associated with SOW sections 4.7.3? | The Government will furnish the Contractor with available materials for updates, including CDRLs and any GFI required for hardware maintenance and training materials. | |
| 63 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 42; SOW 4.8 CLIN 0008 Option for Development and Test Labs | Please clarify the scope and purpose of the Commercial and Classified Labs with respect to how the labs relate to the other requirements in the SOW and ultimate goals of the contract, in particular, the development and testing scope in SOW 4.5 which presumably will be performed before CLIN 0008 is exercised. More information is needed as the desired outcome /scope/intent for lab use (contractor use, Government use). | Requirements in Section 4.5 may be performed at a contractor site as part of a contractor's larger production efforts and in conjunction with the Portal and lead the Distributed PTF solution. The contractor will be required to ensure that the other Mod X contractors' data is properly included in the Portal. Additionally, the contractor will be required to develop PTF test carts for all other contractors and shall lead the DPTF solution for all other contractors that are part of the ICS HW Program. The CLIN 0008 labs are options to give the Government greater ability to develop solutions and test out new initiatives. The primary difference is that the labs could be utilized at the beginning of the development cycle while the SOW 4.5 requirements are specifically to verify completed designs in preparation for delivery. | |
| 64 | 12/13/24 | Draft RFP | Page 43; SOW 4.14 CLIN 0014 Production Portal | Please clarify the Production Portal requirement with respect to how it relates to the "Government approved" location referenced in various other SOW section (e.g., 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 3.8.11). Is the production portal the same as the ecosystem referenced in 3.8.11, and the same as "a Government approved location" referenced in SOW 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 with respect to the SW and HW catalogs? Please clarify what the Government means by "integrate with dynamic data communities" | See response to Question 32. |
"Integrate with dynamic data communities" means that the Portal may need to data ingest and data integrate with other data outside of the Portal. The Government is looking for solutions to data ingestion and integration that are automated and repeatable.
| 65 | 12/13/24 | CDRL A004 | FUNCTIONAL COST-HOUR REPORT (DD FORM 1921-1) (COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORT (CSDR)) | Since this is a FFP Single Award IDIQ, this CDRL seems to run counter to the Govt's goal through the requirement to "Contractors shall be required to submit the Contractor | ||
| Cost Data Reports (CCDRs) at frequencies specified in the OSD DDCA approved CSDR plan and in the contract." | CSDR is a requirement for all contracts, subcontracts, Government-performed efforts, and major components (e.g. government furnished equipment), including FMS and programs in sustainment, regardless of acquisition phase and contract type, including non-FAR agreements, valued at more than $50 million, then-year dollars, for current and former ACT I - II programs. | |||||
| 66 | 12/13/24 | CDRL A005 | QUANTITY DATA REPORT | Since this is an FFP contract vice cost reimbursable, does the Government agree that all of the CDRLs that reference the CSDR, where the C stands for Cost, be tailored to the contract type? Specifically, this CDRL references the "Blocks 10 - 13: Contractors shall be required to submit the Quantity Data Report at frequencies specified in the CAPE-approved CSDR plan. The contract CSDR plan uses the event field as the driver for the submission of the reports..." Does the Government think that the QDR tailored to FFP should be submitted in frequencies delineated in the IMS vice the CSDR? | The ICS IMS will be in alignment with the CSDR and deliverables will be in accordance with the CSDR. The CSDR (and QDR if required in final RFP) is a requirement regardless of CLIN type. | |
| 67 | 12/13/24 | CDRL A006 | TECHNICAL DATA REPORT | Since this is FFP is the CSDR the appropriate tracking mechanism for this CDRL since that seems to be cost focused. Perhaps the IMS presents a better tie-in with non-cost technical factors being the focus? "The CSDR Plan is included as a contract attachment." Reading blocks 10-13 also highlights that this is a cost focused report, perhaps used for EVMS which does not seem to match to the contract type. | See response to Question 65. | |
| 68 | 12/13/24 | CDRL A007 | CONTRACTOR BUSINESS DATA REPORT (CBDR) | Note the last line referencing the CSDR, is that correct for FFP? "CSDR requirements contained in their prime contracts to all subcontractors who meet the reporting thresholds specified in the DoDI 5000.73, or as required by the CWIPT. This includes requiring subcontractors to electronically report directly to CAPE using the | ||
| CSDR Submit-Review System." | See response to Question 65. | |||||
| 69 | 12/13/24 | CDRL A009 | CONTRACT FUNDS STATUS REPORT (CFSR) | "The CFSR requirement will not be applied to firm fixed price contracts (as defined in FAR 16.202) unless unusual circumstances require specific funding visibility." Can the Govt clarify the circumstances and specific funding visibility it is seeking with this CDRL? | This requirement will be removed. See final RFP. | |
| 70 | 12/13/24 | A025 | SYSTEM DISPOSAL PLAN | Can the Government share the current compliant System Disposal Plan? Given that this contract is the transition from LRIP to FRP, the Govt will benefit and gain efficiencies from sharing this, and other plans, by avoiding duplicative costs and work on behalf of the contractors and Government reviewing/certifying personnel. | When equipment reaches the end of useable service life the disposal should be in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4160.21-M Defense Materiel Disposition Manual. |
| 71 | 12/13/24 | A032 | SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLAN (SSPP) | Can the Government share the current compliant System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)? Given that this contract is the transition from LRIP to FRP, the Govt will benefit and gain efficiencies from sharing this, and other plans, by avoiding duplicative costs and work on behalf of the contractors and Government reviewing/certifying personnel. | The current SSPP will be provided with the final RFP release. | |
| 72 | 12/13/24 | A039 | FACTORY ACCEPTANCE TEST (FAT) PLAN AND | |||
| PROCEDURES | Can the Government share the current compliant FAT Plan? Given that this contract is the transition from LRIP to FRP, the Govt will benefit and gain efficiencies from sharing this, and other plans, by avoiding duplicative costs and work on behalf of the contractors and Government reviewing/certifying personnel. | Post contract award, the Government will share all relevant plans and procedures, etc. that have been developed during LRIP that can be used for FRP. FAT plan and procedures are an example of a relevant item that can be shared. | ||||
| 73 | 12/13/24 | A057 | DEPOT SOURCE OF REPAIR (DSOR) | Given the DRFP and overall Scope of this effort, does the Govt foresee the requirement for a DLR program in this instance? Generally, OEMs do not perform this type of layered maintenance on these types of devices across this industry. Can the Govt clarify its vision for the DLR program? | The expectation is that the vendor will work with the OEM’s for repair capability where available. The Keg assembly may need to be “repaired” brought back to working level. Actual technical “repair” of parts can be accomplished by depot sending to OEM or if not repairable or economically feasible, disposed of. | |
| 74 | 12/13/24 | Common Enclosure Requirements.doc | Page 8, Section 3.0 System Requirements | Does the Government intend to release an updated Common Enclosure (CE) requirements document that aligns with Mission Critical Enclosure v2.0 (MCE2.0) specifications? Without this update, contractors must extrapolate differences between Legacy CI and MK 6 MOD X.pdf requirements using only the Core Cabinet Metric chart, which may lead to inconsistent interpretations across proposals. | All requirements will be available to vendor upon award. Specifically the CE requirements have been, and will be, updated to match MCE2.0. | |
| 75 | 12/13/24 | Common Enclosure Requirements.doc | Page 68; 3.13 Facilities and Facility Requirements | Requirement for internal 15kVA UPS within each Common Enclosure presents fundamental space conflicts regardless of cooling method. With maximum enclosure dimensions of 28"W x 75"H x 36.5"D, the combination of 32U payload capacity requirement, cooling infrastructure space needs (both air and liquid), and power conversion requirements from 440V 3-phase to 120-208V single-phase cannot be physically accommodated. Would the Government consider modifying Section 3.13 to permit external UPS infrastructure? This solution would maintain the required 15kVA power delivery per rack while preserving payload capacity and accommodating necessary power conversion and cooling systems, regardless of cooling method selected. | The current design does not have an internal enclosure UPS. The Government will review the draft RFP and potentially modify for the final RFP. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .