Q&A RFP 10 July 2018.pdf

RFP N00039-18-R-0058

Q & A

10 JULY 2018

1) In the last paragraph of section 3.1.20.1.1 of the BFTN Specification it states, “The SNR TDMA protocols are governed by ANNEX A TO STANAG 4691 for the SNR Controller and STANAG 4539 for the SNR Modem.” Does the SNR Modem somehow utilize STANAG 4539 waveforms (3kHz HF waveforms) for UHF communications in 25kHz? If so how is the data rate expanded to the required 96kbps.

Answer: No, there is no direct correlation between the two standards listed. The Government is providing offerors with examples to specify the range of settings to be used.

2) Is the UHF modem required to be compliant to STANAG 4691? If so, which Annex(es)?

Answer: No.

3) Is the HSM-2050 (Rockwell Collins p/n 822-2592-001) STANAG 4691 compliant? Specifically, which

STANAG 4691 Annexes does it implement?

Answer: Yes, the HSM-2050 (Rockwell Collins p/n 822-2592-001) is STANAG 4691 compliant.

All STANAG 4691 annexes apply.

4) Does the HFIP controller software (GFS) and/or the SNR Controller firmware (Rockwell-Collins 811-

4418-009) implement any interfaces, APIs, or features/functions that are not fully defined in STANAG 5066 (HFIP) and STANAG 4196 (SNR)? If so, what are the functions of these non-standard features and to what do they interface?

5) It is clear from the updated BFTN specification that wideband HF and UHF greater than 25kHz is not required. Is wideband operation desirable as objective requirements (e.g. 24kHz or 48kHz HF, 100kHz/300kHz/500kHz UHF, STANAG 5066 Ed.4 (WB) “ready”).

Answer: No, there are no objective requirements. This is a build-to-print specification.

6) We do not see Assembly drawings with the TDP. May we please get a copy of the Rack and Cable Assembly drawings?

Answer: From QA DRAFT RFP 19 APR Question #1: Contractor shall create their own assembly procedures using the technical specification, BOM, TDP and Reference Standards in SOW.

7) We do not see Test Procedures in the TDP. May we please get a copy of all test equipment?

Answer: The assembly and test of the Build-to-Print systems required by the SOW, can be evaluated and fault isolated using three standard test equipment articles:

a. A Vector Signal Analyzer that measures the magnitude and phase of the input signal at a single frequency within the IF bandwidth of the instrument. For example, the input signal measurements might need to be assessed between the synchronous serial converters within the HF/UHF Controller and modems.

b. A Passive Intermodulation Analyzer that accurately measures the signal intermodulation characteristics of passive components, such as connectors, cable assemblies and filters within the rack. A PIA can also be used to assess connectorization for spurious signal emission between connections and cables to assure tempest “cross-talk” is not occurring.

c. A Bit-Error Rate Analyzer that measures modem transfer rates and quality, burst signals and evaluate waveform quality between the rack under test and the golden unit BFTN rack provided as GFE.

Other test equipment common to cable manufacturing such as Multi-Meters and signal ground analyzers may or may not be used in the performance of this contract.

8) References in documentation are made to “Battle Force Tactical Network (BFTN) Technical Manual (EE679-AX-OMI-010)”. May we please receive a copy of this manual?

Answer: From QA draft RFP 19 APR Question #9 : “ The “Battle Force Tactical Network (BFTN) Technical Manual (EE679-AX-OMI-010)” can be provided upon written request via email to tyler.joworski@navy.mil.

9) Respectfully requests a 30-day extension to the RFP due date?

Answer: Per Amendment 0001 of the Solicitation, the due date for proposals has been extended to 20 August 2018 at 10:00am PDT.

10) Please clarify the NTE $4,928,000 cost figure on page 78 of the RFP (Volume II - Cost Proposal instructions, Cost Breakdown), in context of the NTE $10, 714,000 price figure on page 2 (Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices). What tasks or effort are included in the larger figure, but not included in the smaller figure?

Answer: The Correct NTE Amount to be used for CLIN 0003 in Section B is $ 10,714,000, which includes Engineering Services and Other Direct Costs (ODC’s). Per Amendment 0001, NTE cost on pg.78 of the RFP has been changed to reflect $10,714,000.

11) CDRL's A001 through A023 -- the RFP/SOW states these are "in support of" CLIN 1,2,3 and 4.

However, is the effort for these included in CLIN 1 and 2 (for section 4 and 5 of the SOW), or are all NRE activities bid in CLIN 3?

Answer: All NRE activities shall be bid on CLIN 0003. All other activities will be proposed in the pricing for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002. Further, refer to block 1 of the CDRLs, which indicates the CLINs it supports.

mailto:tyler.joworski@navy.mil

10 JULY 2018

12) For the parts that you have specified, can you confirm that the effort to resolve product obsolescence (e.g. replace a component with a non-obsolete part) are included in this contract?

Answer: Yes.

13) The factors that will be evaluated in the offer are: Lowest price, technically acceptable with 1.

Technical Compliance 2. Past Performance 3. Price/Cost, will subject matter expert be evaluated and if so in which factor?

Answer: Factor 1 is Technical Approach, Factor 2 is Past Performance, and Factor 3 is Price/Cost. No subject matter expert will be evaluated in any factors related to this solicitation.

14) Regarding "Factor 1 - Technical Approach", must respondents provide a test report or Government

Certification for all the standards listed and for all equipment specified in the build-to-print BOM provided with the RFP, or only where the respondent is suggesting alternatives to the mandated BOM? In other words, if no alternatives are suggested then no test report or certification is required for the mandated parts and rack?

Answer: The BOM is not build-to-print since there are components that are not vendor specific and offerors may use alternatives. However, there will be no alternatives to the build-to-print Specification. In regards to Factor 1, test reports and certifications are required for evaluation purposes to provide evidence to the Government that offerors are capable of process/procedures of building/testing a similar system.

15) Sealevel has stated that specifications for the product (PN 9365) are not yet available. It is therefore not possible to accurately estimate the effort to modify SubNet Relay software to support the PN 9365; would you accept costing based on the Sealevel PN 9063?

Answer: No. The Government has contacted Sealevel and confirmed the PN 9365 exists. Sealevel has indicated it will provide quotes.

16) The RFP, SOW, and BFTN System Specification disagree on the SubNet Relay version. What version is required?

Answer: See Specification, Table 3: List of Software.

17) Referring to Table 3, section 3.1.21 of the BFTN SPEC, do respondents use column "License Reqd" only to determine if a license is required? For items that do require a license, how to determine how many licenses are required per rack? Should the cost of each license be included in the estimate for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002?

See Amendment 0001.

18) Also referring to Table 3, section 3.1.21 of the BFTN SPEC, what is meant by the columns "License

Reqd for US?" and "License Reqd ALLIED?"? For example, in some instances the item is marked 'N' under "License Reqd", but 'Y' under "License Reqd for US?" and "License Reqd ALLIED?"; what is the respondent’s responsibility in this case?

See Amendment 0001.

19) Please add "as of contract effective date" following the provided URL in section G-TXT-07A Payment Instruction Link.

Answer: No change, as Delivery Orders will contain effective date.

20) Per the prescribing clause, clause 52.204-15 Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite- Delivery Contracts" is not required. Please remove.

Answer: Per Amendment 0001 for Solicitation N00039-18-R-0058, this clause has been removed.

21) Question: In the Contract/Solicitation, Section B for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0004, please clarify what rationale is needed for the cost analysis, specifically, can the Gov’t provide guidance for pricing in what Base year(s) dollars, or some other specified method?

See Section L costs breakdown for CLIN 0003 only. CLINS 0001, 0002 and 0004 are Firm Fixed Price.

22) In the Contract/Solicitation, Section B, page 2, the CLIN 0003 price is listed as NTE $10,714,000, but page 78, line 1 lists NTE $4,928,000, and gives a detailed description of the pricing/cost detail required.

Questions:

(a) Which dollar value ($10,714,000 or $4,928,000) should be used for CLIN 0003?

Answer - The Correct NTE Amount to be used for CLIN 0003 is $ 10,714,000.

(b) Could the Gov’t please clarify whether all bidders should enter the following in the Contract/Solicitation on page 2 for CLIN 0003?

a. In the “Quantity” box: Input the Total # of Labor Hours described on page 78?

i. Answer – Offeror is to provide total # of labor Hours.

b. In the “Unit Price” box: Input the average labor rate of all hours described on page 78?

i. Answer – Offeror is to provide rate; Section L requires full cost detail.

c. In the “Amount” box: All bidders should input the same total price? ($4,928,000 or

$10,714,000?)

i. Answer – Yes, without deviation, all bidders shall bid the NTE for CLIN 0003 of

$10,714,000

d. Is more detailed information/description of applicable tasks available to enable an accurate comparison between bidders?

i. Answer – No

23) Question: In the Contract/Solicitation, page 3, Section B, for CLIN 0004, should all bidders enter $1,867,000 in the “Amount” box? If so, what should be entered in the “Quantity”, “Unit”, and “Unit Price” boxes? Or will the Gov’t provide inputs/guidance re historical Spares required to calculate a different “Amount”?

Answer: Yes, without deviation, all bidders shall bid the NTE amount of $1,867,000 and a Quantity of 1 Lot.

24) The Draft RFP gave guidance re Total Evaluated Price, but that language was removed in the final

RFP.

Question: Will the Gov’t please clarify how the Total Evaluated Price will be calculated to enable an accurate comparison between bidders?

Answer: See Section M Factor 3: Price and Cost.

25) In the final RFP, Submarine Kit Drawing USN18-00003 was updated to remove the equipment list on sheet 2, and Drawing USN18-65001 was updated to remove several cables, including W37, W38, W39, and W40.

Questions:

(a) Is the rack assembly, USN18-32519, now the only difference between the two variants?

(b) Can a BOM be provided for the AN/USQ-195(v)2 configuration to ensure accurate pricing?

(a) No, there are several differences. See Amendment 1 with updated BOM for submarines.

(b) Yes.

26. Question: Will the Gov’t provide the existing CDRLs for the winning bidder to utilize when updating for initial/follow-on submittals to maintain the same format and consistency across BFTN contracts?

27. In the BFTN Spec, Section 3.1, pages 10-14, and in the TDP Bills of Material, there are Figures and

BOMs specified for “US” and “US and Allied/Coalition” types of circuits and Hardware that are different, which will impact Pricing (e.g. different Variants require 2 vs. 4 Rockwell Modems). And the Industry Day package, Slide 14 identified that “AN/USQ-195(v)2 may or may not be ordered with the Allied/Coalition capability”.

Question: Would the Gov’t please clarify whether separate pricing options should be provided for AN/USQ-195(v)1 and (v)2 for “with” and “without” Allied/Coalition capability?

Answer: No, there are two prices for the BFTN system; one for variant 1 CLIN 0001 and one for variant 2 CLIN 0002. Both variants, now, include all the equipment required within the Specification, i.e. U.S. and Allied/Coalition. There is no system configuration that only requires U.S. capability.

28.) In the Contract/Solicitation, page 79, 4th paragraph, it says “The requirements stated in paragraphs

(a) through (g) above shall be met for each subcontract which has uncompensated effort included in the proposal.” Question: To what page/section are “paragraphs (a) through (g) above” referring?

Answer: The page/section to which “paragraphs (a) through (g) above” are referring to is the 7 paragraphs listed after “Uncompensated Overtime and Professional Employees”. The lettering was removed in error and has been included per Amendment 0001.

29. The Contract/Solicitation, page 74, Sections L-317.5 and L-317.6 seem to indicate that both Electronic and Paper copies of the proposal must be submitted. Question: Does the Gov’t require both Electronic and Paper copies of the proposal be submitted by the same submittal deadline?

Answer: The Government requires submission of Electronic copies only by the submittal deadline.

Clause L-317-6 has been updated per Amendment 0001.

30) The Contract/Solicitation, page 78, paragraph “Direct Rates” indicates that major subcontractors must provide most current rates. Subcontractors often will only provide rates directly to the Gov’t.

Question: If needed, can subcontractors provide their rates to an appropriate Gov’t office? (If so, please specify which Gov’t office.)

Answer: Yes, subcontractors can provide their rates directly to the issuing office (SPAWAR Headquarters, San Diego, CA) via email to tyler.joworski@navy.mil and Heidi.radaford@navy.mil prior to the proposal due date.

31) Question: With the increase in scope and the need for answers to the above questions, would the Gov’t consider granting a 10-day extension to the proposal submittal deadline?

Answer: See answer #9.

32.) FRFP, L-317.5: Offerors shall submit an electronic copy as specified below at L-349 “Electronic Submission of Proposal.L-317.6, 2nd sentence: Paper copies of the proposal shall be submitted as follows

- Issue: The inclusion of a reference to paper copies of the proposal is confusing.

- Clarification: Please confirm that only electronic copies of proposals are to be submitted.

Answer: See answer #29.

33) FRFP, L-317.8, Factor 2-Past Performance (RFP p. 76); Attachment 8 Past Performance Questionnaire Survey; and Attachment 9 Relevant Experience Form.

mailto:tyler.joworski@navy.mil mailto:Heidi.radaford@navy.mil

Issue: The first sentence of Factor 2 guidance directs offerors to provide relevant experience using Attachment 9. The second sentence directs “If no CPARS exists for the referenced past performance,” offerors shall submit Attachment 8 to the PCO. The last paragraph of Attachment 8 references “the attached survey form.”

Clarification: Please confirm: a. If a past performance has no CPAR for Offeror to reference on Attachment 9, then it is the RFP intent that offeror is to complete Attachment 8 and forward it to the appropriate PCO, b. with a completed Attachment 8 for that past performance, then c. forward both the Attachment 8 and Attachment 9 to the appropriate PCO.

Answer: Yes, partially correct. Attachment 8 goes directly from the Government POC for the referenced contract to the BFTN PCO; Heidi.radaford@navy.mil.

34) Page 73, Section L-317.1 of the RFP Page 17, Section 3.1.16 of the BFTN specification

Issue: page 73 states this is a build to print. Page 17 states that all cabling used must be low-smoke, individually shielded wire with dual shield overlay to comply with Tempest requirement and EMI signature limits

Clarification: The cable drawings/run sheets/BOMS that were provided in the BFTN TDP are not all individually shielded nor do they have dual shield overlay. Does the Government want build-to-print or build-to-spec?

Answer: Response will be addressed in separate posting.

35) Page 23, Section 3.2.2 of the BFTN Specification

Issue: Page 23 states Equipment racks shall be equipped with resilient shock mounts. There are no resilient shock mounts called out in the BFTN BOM Rev 12 Final for RFP 6.19.18.pdf file

Clarification: If resilient shock mounts are required, what are the part number(s) for the resilient shock mounts? What are the part number(s) for the mounting hardware required for the resilient shock mounts?

Answer: See revised Specification Amendment 0001.

36) Page 26, Section 3.4.7 and page 17, Section 3.1.16 of the BFTN Specification

Issue: page 26 states that Commercial grade connectors to the component COTS equipment where applicable are acceptable Page 17 states that all cabling used must be low-smoke, individually shielded wire with dual shield overlay to comply with Tempest requirement and EMI signature limits.

Clarification: Please confirm that commercial grade connectors acceptable.

Answer: Commercial grade connectors are acceptable as long as it is sufficiently bound and it utilizes the grounding attributes of this cabling.

37) RFP, Section J, pg 59, reference to Attachment 6. and L-317.7 pg 75 Volume III Section E reference mailto:Heidi.radaford@navy.mil

Issue: The Section J reference to Attachment 6 says the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is “TBD After Award.” L-317.7 Section E reference, under the guidance preceding the table, is “Offerors’ proposal volumes shall include the following”; Section E is “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

Clarification: Please specify whether a company Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted with the proposal.

Answer: Yes, all Large Business’ shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Once an awardee has been determined, that offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be implemented in the contract as Attachment 6.

38.) RFP, Section B, Page 2, CLIN 0003 presents total NTE: $10,714,000. RFP, Section L, Cost Breakdown (Engineering/Fielding Services Applicable to CLIN 0003) continued on page 78 presents Not-To- Exceed $4,928,000.

Issue: The NTE values are different.

Clarification: Please correct different NTE values.

Answer: See answer #10.

39.) Page 3, Section B, CLIN 0004 Ancillary Equipment and Spares, indicates that the not to exceed value is $1,867,000.

a. Are offerors required to propose $1,867,000 for CLIN 0004? If not, please provide additional information on The Ancillary Equipment and Spares for offerors to price. Section 7 of the statement of work and section L of the solicitation do not provide enough information to propose a meaningful price?

Answer: See answer #23.

40.) Page 82, Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

a. How will Sections A through E of Volume III – Contract Documents be evaluated for award?

Section M does not establish minimum requirements for Volume III. For example, what documentation in Volume III -- Section C would be acceptable to support an offeror’s security clearance levels?

Answer: Vol III is submission of required contract documents for Government review and use. They are not a part of Volume I Technical Proposal evaluation.

41.) Page 6, Section B, clause 5252.216.9205 Fee Determination and Payment Subparagraph (b) of this clause contemplates the award of level-of-effort and completion type orders under the contract. Subparagraph (c) of this clause indicates that subcontractor fee will be paid to the subcontractor by the prime contractor from the fee per hour billed from the fixed fee pool.

Question: Will the fee per hour be established on a task order by task order basis, or will the IDIQ establish a fee per hour for all task orders under the IDIQ?

Answer: CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0004 are Firm-Fixed-Price so no fee. CLIN 0003 will have a rate for fee pool which includes prime and subcontractor fee.

Question: Will fee be paid to the contractors at a fixed amount per hour delivered on completion type task orders? This would seem unusual for a completion type contract.

Answer: The fee will be paid to contractors based on percentage for only CLIN 0003.