NGSRS Questions_Feedback 11.3_FINAL.pdf

NextGen Submarine Rescue System (SRS) Post-Industry Day Informational Packet and RFI Notice N00024-27-R-6116

1. Statutory Eligibility & Nontraditional Contractor (NDC) Compliance

Under 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d), a Prototype OTA is only legally authorized if the program meets specific statutory participation gates. Because the NGSRS seeks to leverage commercial deep-submergence and marine diving technology, verifying how potential offerors intend to satisfy the regulatory criteria is critical to establishing the Program’s acquisition approach:

Question 1.1: Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NDC) Participation

"How does your firm plan to satisfy the statutory participation requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1)?

Specifically, do you anticipate your firm or your key subcontractors qualifying as Nontraditional Defense Contractors (NDCs), and will their participation in the design and build phases be 'significant'?"

Question 1.2: Cost-Sharing Viability (Alternative Criteria)

"If your team structure does not feature significant NDC or Small Business participation, does your firm possess the corporate accounting systems and financial capacity to support the mandatory, one-third (1/3rd) cost-share requirement under 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1)(C)?"

2. Technical Feasibility & SETR Milestone Alignment

The program plans for a 24-month design phase ending in the strict Critical Design Review (CDR) pivot point.

Question 2.1: Design Schedule and Funding Realism

"Provide a Rough order of Magnitude pricing (ROM) for 24-month schedule for the design phase sufficient to mature a modified commercial deep-submergence design to a CDR-level baseline. The baseline should specifically include design drawing release. Is a 24-Month schedule sufficient time? Additionally, please provide feedback if the solution / product you tend to provide would take less time than that."

Question 2.2: Modified COTS

"To what extent can your commercial baseline submersible or diving systems meet the program’s draft specs and KPPs (e.g., TTFR, aircraft transportability, etc.)? Will these modifications require a major structural redesign of the pressure hull?"

3. Potential OTA Pathway, Down-Select Mechanics, & “Phase B” (Build) Pricing Strategy

As noted above, the CDR pivot point could be used as a potential down-select mechanism amongst competing designs. Hypothetically, at the CDR gate, the program could elect to transition from two design vendors to one build vendor. In this scenario, the program is interested in understanding pricing strategies for a “Phase A” (Design) and “Phase B” (Build).

Question 3.1: Pricing Commitments at Phase A Proposal Submission

"At the initial proposal stage (Est. Q2 FY2027), are you prepared to submit a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) milestone payment proposal for “Phase A” (Design), while simultaneously providing a Fixed Price for “Phase B” (Tactical Prototype Build) phase before the design is completed?"

Question 3.2: Expenditure-Based vs. Fixed-Price Design Phase

"Given the nature of prototype design and development and the associated uncertainties with “Phase A” (Design), what pricing structure is most appropriate to incentivize your company while protecting both parties from cost and schedule under an OTA?" Who can the design phase be segmented into incremental subphases of the prototype in such a way that makes FFP pricing feasible? For example, segmenting SRR/PDR/CDR into 6–9-month sequential subphases with fixed pricing for each.

Question 3.3: Expenditure-Based vs. Fixed-Price Build Phase

"Given the nature prototype assembly, integration risks, test/qual requirements, etc. associated with “Phase B” (Build), what pricing structure (Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) with risk-based performance milestone payments, or an Expenditure-Based agreement) is most appropriate to incentivize your company while protecting both parties from cost and schedule?"

4. Transition to Production & FAR Compliance

The program envisions a FAR-based production contract for 3–4 operational fleet systems and sustainment services (est. FY2033). Further exploring the hypothetical prototype OTA scenario, this approach could have two off ramps for the successful prototype builder via a follow-on production OTA or follow production FAR-based contract. The program office seeks to understand the extent of interested commercial NDCs and willingness to accept a FAR-based contract.

Question 4.1: Compliance Readiness for FAR Part 15 Production

"Upon successful completion of the Prototype OTA (Phase B), if the Navy intends to transition the system to a sole-source, FAR-based production contract under is your firm capable of, and willing to, transition to a FAR-compliant contract? Specifically, does your team possess the certified cost or pricing data capabilities (TINA) and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) structures required to execute a FAR Part 15 contract for the production run?"

5. Program Schedule Acceleration

The Program seeks industry input on potential enablers and innovative approaches to reduce the timeline for delivering the NextGen SRS solution.

Question 5.1: Sprint to Contract/OTA Award

"What government-controlled bottlenecks (e.g., draft RFP review times, technical data package releases, alternative evaluation methodologies, or proposal instruction complexity) can be streamlined or ran in parallel to enable an award earlier than September 2027 without compromising proposal quality or technical safety?

What proposal duration (21, 30, 60 days) is needed to write a quality design proposal? Can long-lead items be identified early?

Question 5.2: Accelerate IOC

“The program plans for a design phase (2yrs) and tactical prototype build/test phase (4yrs). This plan is not associated with any specific technical solution, known or unknown. How can the program achieve IOC earlier than Sept 2033? Will your solution/ product from start to finish being built be accomplished within 5 years?”