Draft_RFP_QA_N00039-17-R-0043.pdf

Industry Question/Comment DOCUMENT REFERENCE Section Sub-Section Page # Line # Govt Response

(Q1) There are only two prime contractors that have specific Gate Criteria experience required under Volume I: Gate Criteria: Corporate Experience. Is it the government’s intent to limit this MAC procurement to those two contractors by including requisite past TIF experience required by PWS 3.1.2.7, 3.1.4.5, 3.1.5.2 as part of the Gate Criteria?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

L-5 through- L-6 Lines 154 - 211 (A1) The gate criteria language will be modified such that an offeror may use land-based system of system test and integration experience in lieu of TIF experience.

(Q2) Page L-5, Lines 176-181 require that the one contract reference involving the simultaneous SOS installation, integration and testing of at least 10 C4I POR systems on a single US Naval warship, including CANES or ISNS integration and testing at the SCI level. Since CANES/ISNS and other C4I systems testing for in-service ships has traditionally been government-accomplished with support from the contractor, this requirement limits competition to the incumbent contractors. Request that requirement be changed to “One POR must have supported testing through Stage 7…” and “One POR must be CANES or ISNS and one POR include testing support of a POR C4I system at the SCI level.”

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

L-5 Lines 176 - 181 (A2) The Government has reviewed and will address the requirement in the final RFP.

(Q3) Page L-5, Lines 181-182 require offerors to complete Attachment 9, Hull POR Summary, identifying by hull number the 10 POR systems and test work completed. Would the government allow submittal of multiple Attachment 9s and associated increase in page count to assist the Government in assessing the offeror's experience across multiple hulls/platforms?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

L-5 Lines 181 - 182 (A3) The Government has reviewed and will address the requirement in the final RFP.

(Q4) Regarding Page L-5, Lines 156-160, request the government confirm that the 3 contract references will be evaluated in aggregate as a whole vice individually with regard to assessing performance within the PWS areas and magnitude (invoice value).

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

L-5 Lines 156 - 160 (A4) The Government will aggregate the 3 contract references as a whole vice individually with regard to assessing performance within the PWS areas and magnitude.

(Q5) Regarding Page L-5, Line 156, request block 15 of Attachment 6 be revised to state “Provide a summary description of Afloat C4I systems integration…” vice “Provide a summary description of Shipboard C4I integration……” since many of the PWS requirements listed are associated with work at a TIF or other locations and does not allow for inclusion of relevant work accomplished at these locations or other land-based sites and/or platforms where work on these Afloat C4I systems is accomplished

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

L-5 Line 156

(A5) The Government will adjust the language to read “Provide a summary description of Afloat C4I systems integration…” vice “Provide a summary description of Shipboard C4I integration……”.

(Q6) Regarding Page M-1, Lines 834-835, can the government quantify the number of PWS areas accomplished by contract references (Attachment 7) that must be addressed in order for an offeror to obtain an acceptable gate criteria rating (e.g., 10 of 12 PWS areas successfully addressed)?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION M

M-TXT-03 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award (Best Value) -

Volume I Gate Criteria:

Corporate Experience

M-1 Lines 834 - 835 (A6) Each contract reference must address at least one area of the PWS; the aggregate of all contract references does not need to address all 12 areas of the PWS.

(Q7) To facilitate labor category mapping against the government-specified labor mix, will the final RFP provide labor category descriptions for the FLSA Exempt categories?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - VOLUME III:

COST PROPOSAL - SECTION

A: FACTOR 4: COST

PROPOSAL

L-10 Lines 422 - 427 (A7) The RFP will be amended to include labor category descriptions for the FLSA Exempt categories.

(Q8) Will the government clarify which SCN availability anticipates CANES S/W load strategy where CICD1 will no longer be performed at the NIEF, but instead on board ship? Is this a contingency for CVN newcon or applicable to LHA newcon and CVN RCOH as well?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

(2) Subfactor 1.2: Single

Ship Availability Planning (2)1.a.xi

L-8 Line 330

(A8a) The Government clarifies that the CANES CICD1 is shipboard for this instance. (A8b) The CANES S/W load strategy for LHA newcon and CVN RCOH is not pertinent to this evaluation factor.

DRAFT RFP Q&A N00039-17-R-0043 (CTII-FO)

DRAFT RFP Q&A N00039-17-R-0043 (CTII-FO)

(Q9) Will the government clarify each platform scope and composition of ‘C4I Sos’ at the TIF? C4I SoS is all encompassing and could include distributed/network systems, comms, and applications that have not been the traditional C4I configuration integrated and stage-tested at the TIF. Please confirm the C4I SoS term in the PWS 3.1.5.2 context relates to various RCS configurations for newcon CVN, RCOH, and newcon LHA as defined in NAVSEA 7300 forms.

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

3.1.5 Production/Integration

3.1.5.2 Platform TIF

(paragraph (a))

23 Line 783

(A9a) The Government will clarify each platform scope and composition at the TO level post-contract award.

(A9b) The C4I SoS term in the PWS 3.1.5.2 context relates to various RCS and SSES configurations for newcon CVN, RCOH, and newcon LHA as defined in NAVSEA 7300 forms.

(Q10) Will the government clarify TIF facility limitations associated with collocating distributed network (e.g., CANES enclaves) for integration with comms suite as well as government-furnished assets required to support RCS subset of C4I SoS stage testing?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

3.1.5 Production/Integration

3.1.5.2 Platform TIF

(paragraph (a))

23 Line 783 (A10) There is no intention to incorporate the Distributed Systems for integration with communications suite at the TIF.

(Q11) The Gate Criteria indicates experience with specific Program of Record (PoR) systems is a requirement for bid qualification: “One POR must be Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) or Integrated Shipboard Network System (ISNS) integration and testing at the SCI level.

One POR must be a Naval SATCOM system listed in Attachment 8 to include above and below deck integration. One POR must be Tactical Variant Switch (TVS) or Automated Digital Network Switch (ADNS).”

The inclusion of this language will significantly limit competition. Will the Government consider removing the quoted text above from the Gate Criteria?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - Volume I: Gate

Criteria: Corporate Experience

Page L-5 177 - 181 (A11) The Government will remove the language.

(Q12) The example in item (i) is a requirement for a paint booth that can accommodate painting and powder coating. Is this a true requirement?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

1.2 SCOPE

1.2.2 Facilities (paragraph

(i)) Page 7 92 - 93 (A12) The Government will remove the requirement.

(Q13) The example in item (j) is a requirement for a fabrication shop. Is this a true requirement?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

1.2 SCOPE 1.2.2 Facilities (paragraph

(j))

Page 7 94 - 95 (A13) The Government will remove the requirement.

(Q14) The PWS indicates that Flight Deck Certification (FDC) Riders are part of the tasking for this contract. Is this correct?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

1.2 SCOPE 1.2.4 Tasking Page 7-8 121 (A14) The Government will remove the requirement.

(Q15) The PWS seems to place emphasis on Shock and Vibration support. Will experience and/or capability with these services be part of the Past Performance requirements?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

3.2 SHOCK TEST SUPPORT

(RDT&E Funded)

3.2 SHOCK TEST SUPPORT

(RDT&E Funded)

Page 26 - 28 935 - 1047

(A15) The Government did not intend to place emphasis on Shock and Vibe effort in the PWS. The Government will evaluate past performance as stated in Factor 2: PAST

PERFORMANCE.

(Q16) The solicitation seems to emphasize OPN funded support (all of Section 3.3). Is the intention to have a significant amount of work that is OPN funded? If not, will there be a need to address this section in the Past Performance response?

Draft_RFP_Att1-

PWS_09JUL2018

3.3 INSTALLATION

SUPPORT (OPN Funded)

3.3 INSTALLATION

SUPPORT (OPN Funded)

Page 28 1048-1262

(A16a) The Government did not intend to place emphasis on the OPN funded effort. OPN is not anticipated to be a significant amount of work on this contract.

(A16b) The Government will evaluate past performance as stated in Factor 2: PAST PERFORMANCE.

(Q17) Subfactors 1.1 and 1.2 each require a one-page Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Based on the formatting guidance in the draft, it is assumed that the IMS will conform to one-page, 12 point font requirements. These formatting restrictions do not seem to allow for an IMS that encompasses 25 C4I systems, 150 racks, 4,800 cables, and five Phases. Would the Government consider revising the requirements to allow for a Microsoft Project file to Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) X (Government direction) with no page limit?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.6 ELECTRONIC

SUBMISSION,

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT

Page L-2

Page L-4

(A17) The Government will not change the page and font requirement. The Government is not requesting a detailed Microsoft Project file to Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for this evaluation factor.

(Q18) Will the final RFP include a Key Personnel requirement?

If so, would the Government provide a draft version of this requirement to Industry?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

N/A N/A N/A N/A (A18) The Government does not plan to have a Key Personnel requirement.

DRAFT RFP Q&A N00039-17-R-0043 (CTII-FO)

(Q19) The text refers to an Option period of three years;

however, this timeframe is inconsistent with the pricing attachment and the solicitation announcement, which references 10 years. This will be important to address since contractors are normally required to submit a completed Section B as part of the proposal submission.

Draft_RFP_Section _B- CLIN_Structure_11JUL2018

N/A N/A Page 3 N/A (A19) The potential total period of performance of this contract is 10 years.

(Q20) Cyber Security Workforce, CDRL A022, is missing Attachment 1. This attachment is critical, as it provides the required certification reporting information, as is intended in the CDRL.

Draft_RFP_Att2-

CDRLS_09JUL2018

A022 N/A Page 22 N/A (A20) The Government will address this comment in the final

RFP.

(Q21) The CDRLs reference CLIN 0006, but there is currently no CLIN 0006 (CDRL CLINS are 0005 and 1005).

Draft_RFP_Att2-

CDRLS_09JUL2018

N/A N/A N/A N/A (A21) The Government will address this comment in the final

RFP.

(Q22) CDRL CLINS 0005 and 1005 are Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

Section B indicates that its contents are not separately priced (NSP); however, CDRL CLINS are typically shown as “data” (vs.

the current FFP text).

Draft_RFP_Att2-

CDRLS_09JUL2018

N/A N/A N/A N/A (A22) No comment.

(Q23) Table in page L-4 indicates Volume II Subfactor 1.2 should be 1 IMS page and 10 pages maximum for supporting narrative. Page L-8, lines 316-318 says the section is limited to 1 page for IMS and 5 pages for written description. Please clarify if the IMS supporting narrative should be a maximum of 10 or 5 pages.

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

L-TXT-04.7 PROPOSAL

FORMAT - (2) VOLUME II:

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - (b)

FACTOR 1:

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT

APPROACH - (2) Subfactor

1.2: SINGLE SHIP

AVAILABILITY PLANNING

L-4 & L-8 138 (L-4)

316-318 (L-8) (A23) The Government will change the number to 10 pages maximum.

(Q24) Will the Gov’t clarify the amount discrepancy noted in Row 169 of the Section L ($45M) vice the Attachment 7 amount ($50M)?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section L- Rows 169 – 170 and Attachment 7 Gate Criteria Matrix

L-5 169 (A24) The Government will change attachment amount to $45M.

(Q25) Section B defines an 8 year contract term based on a 5 year Base Period plus a single 3 Year Option Period for the contract term. Section A Cost Proposal Estimated Number of Hours includes hours for a 10-year contract term. Please rationalize the contract term so Section B and Section A Factor 4 Cost Proposal.

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section B & Section A Factor 4 Cost Proposal

L-10 440-443 (A25) See A19.

(Q26) Section B defines an 8 year contract term based on a 5 year Base Period plus a single 3 Year Option Period for the contract term. Section L-TXT-09a Material includes plug values for a 10-year contract term. Please rationalize the contract term so Section B and section L-TXT-09a align.

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section B & L-TXT-09a

MATERIAL (CLIN 0003)

L-15 700-704 (A26) See A19.

(Q27) Section B defines an 8 year contract term based on a 5 year Base Period plus a single 3 Year Option Period for the contract term. Section L-TXT-09b ODCs includes plug values for a 10-year contract term. Please rationalize the contract term so Section B and section L-TXT-09b align.

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section B & L-TXT-09b

MATERIAL (CLIN 0004)

L-15 707-733 (A27) See A19.

(Q28) Attachment 4 Labor Table: Will the government provide specific hours by labor category / level or will offerors be allowed to provide a mix of labor that meets the LOE requirement, supports their technical approach, and provides the best value to the government?+A36

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section A Factor 4 Cost Proposal & L-TXT-08

Estimated Level of Effort L-10, L-15 440-443 (L-10) & 707-716

(L-15) (A28) Offerors are to propose labor hours/mix in accordance with Attachment 4 Labor Table.

(Q29) Attachment 4 Labor Table: Will offerors be allowed to include administrative support personnel within the LOE?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

Section A Factor 4 Cost Proposal & L-TXT-08

Estimated Level of Effort L-10, L-15 N/A (A29) No.

(Q30) The draft Excel file is formatted for a 10-year Period of Performance. Please align the excel file with the Period of Performance in Section B.

Draft_RFP_Att14- Prime_Ctr_and_Subctr_Cost_S prshts_11JUL2018 N/A

DRAFT_RFP_ATT14-

PRIME_CTR_AND_SUBCTR_

COST_SPRSHTS_11JUL2018

N/A N/A (A30) See A19.

DRAFT RFP Q&A N00039-17-R-0043 (CTII-FO)

(Q31) Subcontractors providing less than $13.5M may not have a DCMA approved accounting system and may enter into a T&M or FFP-LOE arrangement with prime contractors but they could provide a full cost build-up of their labor costs. Will subcontractors whose total labor cost without fee below $13.5M be required to have an approved DCMA accounting system?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L

VOLUME III: COST

PROPOSAL - (a) SECTION A:

FACTOR 4: COST PROPOSAL

(paragraphs 5 & 6)

L-11 472-478 (A31) The comment is under review.

(Q32) Restricting the use of Uncompensated Overtime by its various names seems onerous. The government requires 40-hour workweeks yet contractor staff still require time to perform administrative duties such as completing time sheets, training, staff meetings, and other non-contract related effort.

Will the government remove the restriction on uncompensated overtime?

Draft_RFP_Sections_L and M_07112018

SECTION L & SECTION M

L-TXT-10 Uncompensated Overtime

M-TXT-05 Uncompensated

Overtime

L-16, M-6 735-775 (L-16) & 1070-

1080 (M-6) (A32) The Government will not remove the restriction on uncompensated overtime.

Sheet1