N0003925R9510_ADNS MAC_QA Set 03_21 JUL 2025.pdf

ADNS MAC Solicitation: N0003925R9510 QA Set 03

No. Section # Section Title Page # Question / Issue Government Response Will Result In RFP Change?

SOW Section 4.1.2

SOW Section 4.1.2 states"The Contractor shall fully implement the CUI Security Requirements and associated Relevant Security Controls in NIST Special Publication 800-171 (Rev. 3) (Reference #23)."

Will compliance with current DOD CMMC (Rev. 2) requirements suffice?

The Government confirms that compliance with DOD CMMC (Rev. 2) is not sufficient. The Offerors shall fully implement the CUI Security Requirements and associated Relevant Security Controls in NIST Special Publication 800-171 (Rev. 3).

No.

44 3.2.5 Section 7 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

In 3.2.5 Section 7 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan of the RFP states Large Business Offerors can submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (or approved comprehensive plan). Will the Government accept an approved commercial plan in lieu of an approved comprehensive plan to satisfy the requirement?

Clarification, question is in reference to Section L - 3.2.8 SECTION 8 – SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The Government confirms that a commercial plan submittal that meets FAR 19.704 subcontracting plan requirements would be deemed acceptable.

No.

45 3.2.5 Section 7 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

If the government will accept a commercial small business participation plan, can the government remove the page limitations for Factor 5?

Per Section L - 2.1.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT, the Offerors' Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted as Volume II Section 8. There is no page limit for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The page limit for Volume I Factor 5 - Extent of Participation of Small Business will remain at five (5) pages.

No.

46 3.1.1 Product Baseline

In Section 3.1.1, there is a reference to post award Government changes to the Product Baseline. Can the Government please confirm that the request is for the Offeror to describe how they will address required changes to the PBL during the production cycle?

Clarification, question is in reference to Section L - 3.1.1 FACTOR 1 – ADNS PRODUCTION PROCESSES AND CAPACITY paragraph (a)

The Government confirms that the Offerors are to describe how they will address required changes to the Product Baseline (PBL) during the production cycle.

No.

47 3.1.8 Quality Assurance (QA) Program

From SOW 3.1.8 “The Contractor shall establish, implement and maintain a Quality Assurance (QA) Program that meets the certification requirements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001-2015, or an equivalent QA system.” Can the Navy please describe what they would consider an equivalent QA system?

An equivalent QA system is one that, while it may not hold the ISO 9001:2015 certification, demonstrates comparable standards and practices for managing quality, such as:

• Compliance with other recognized international standards (e.g., AS9100, IATF 16949);

• Robust internal quality control processes and documentation;

• Clear mechanisms for continuous improvement and customer feedback;

• Evidenced by third-party audits or assessments showing adherence to quality management principles.

No.

SOW 3.2.3,

4.1.1; L.3.1.3.d

SSP Reviews

From SOW 3.2.3 “As part of the initial inspection and to ascertain operational status, the contractor shall allow access to the contractor’s facility and production units by Government appointed representatives.”

In SOW Section 4.1.1 there is a specific and stated frequency that SSP reviews and verifications can occur.

Does the Government have a predetermined audit schedule for the quality control checks that are required in the IMS [Section L.3.1.3.d] or will that be determined upon award?

The Government confirms that the schedule for quality control checks will be determined per each individual Delivery Order.

No.

49 3.1.5(a) Factor 5 – Extent of Participation of Small Business

In 3.1.5(a) Factor 5 – Extent of Participation of Small Business, the Government asks the offeror to demonstrate a record of timely payment of subcontractors.

Please identify the types of documentation the government deems as acceptable proof of timely payments to subcontractors.

Offerors are to provide a description of current payment procedures ensuring timely payment for small business subcontractors on other contracts/efforts. If available, provide metrics supporting the statement.

No.

Section L.3.1.3 Drawing 0314100 Drawing 0313790

Section L.3.1.3 directs Offerors to write to a sample delivery order containing "one ADNS CVN system, two ADNS DDG systems, and one ADNS Virginia Class Submarine system" without providing specifics on which configurations to use (SCN, Initial Install, Tech Refresh).

The surface architecture diagram (0314100) also lists two different baselines (0314101-100 and 0314101-200) and ancillary/SCI upgrade kits.

Are we to write to a baseline build only (just the two racks and KG-175) or baseline+ancillary+SCI upgrade kits?

See answers to questions 28 and 29 from QA Set 02, dated 15 July 2025. No.

No. Section # Section Title Page # Question / Issue Government Response Will Result In RFP Change?

L.3.1.1 L.3.1.2

We are seeking clarification regarding the level of SOW coverage expected within the Technical Volume of the proposal.

Section L.3.1.1 of the RFP directs Offerors to consider the TDPs and the SOW and in Section L.3.1.2 to descibe the approach IAW with the SOW. While we understand this to mean Offerors should focus on the specific evaluation criteria outlined under each Factor and expand as relevant, we want to confirm whether there is an expectation to address all SOW sections within the Technical Volume, or only those that directly support the narrative and requirements of Section L.

We are seeking to confirm whether omission of sections that do not align with Section L evaluation criteria is acceptable.

The Government confirms that proposals are to address the specific evaluation criteria outlined under each Section L Factor.

No.

L-204-HQ003

02 July Q&A Set

The 02 July Q&A set and conformed 0002 RFP reference that submissions are via SAM.gov.

Could you please confirm whether responses should be submitted through SAM.gov or through PIEE, in light of the NAVWAR guidance that, as of 01 June, all new solicitations are posted via the PIEE Solicitation Module (SOL)?

The Government confirms that Offerors are to submit via PIEE Solicitation Module (SOL). See revised Section L-204-HQ003 SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS. See Amendment 0004

Yes. See Amendment

Solicitation Section L-3.1.2 Factor 2 and

3.1.3 Factor 3

MANAGEMENT

APPROACH AND

ADNS SAMPLE

DELIVERY ORDER

50 & 51

In Factor 2 and 3, there are multiple references to accounting for any technology, engineering, or design changes that may be required during delivery of ADNS systems. Please confirm changes would be required during production at the contractor’s facility and not during delivery to the Government after the systems have been through DCMA Inspection and packaged for shipment to the Government.

See answers to question 41 from QA Set 02, dated 15 July 2025. No.

54 L-204-HQ003(a) Submission of Electronic Proposals

Section L-204-HQ003(a) states that the offeror shall submit responses via SAM.gov.

However, SAM.gov does not provide an area for files to be uploaded for submission. Will the Government confirm and update the solicitation to indicate our proposals should be submitted in PIEE?

See answer to question 52. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment

55 L-204-HQ003(a) Submission of Electronic Proposals

According to the PIEE Files Extension Support Document, as well as the PIEE Help Desk, Zip files are not an accepted format for submission. Will the Government remove the Zip file requirement in Section L-204-HQ003(a)?

The Government confirms that PIEE does not accept Zip files for submission. See revised Section L- 204-HQ003 SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS. See Amendment 0004

Yes. See Amendment

Section M-216- HQ001.b.3 Section B

EVALUATION

CRITERIA AND

BASIS FOR AWARD

Section M-216-HQ001.b.3 references pricing as part of the evaluation criteria.

However, Section B of the solicitation explicitly states that offerors shall not provide pricing for any CLINs identified in Section B.

Can the Government please clarify whether the inclusion of pricing in Section M- 216-HQ001.b.3 is an error?

Pricing is not an evaluation factor for the ADNS MAC award. Pricing will be considered on individual delivery orders. The Government has amended Section M-216-HQ001.b.3: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD, for clarity. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment

Solicitation: L-

204-HQ003

SUBMISSION OF

ELECTRONIC

PROPOSALS

(NAVWAR) (APR

2025)

"Electronic copies shall be submitted via the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). Offerors shall register in SAM.gov and select their own password in order to submit a proposal."

Unable to locate a page or portal for submitting proposals through the site as indicated. Could you please advise on where and how proposal submissions should be made?

See answer to question 52. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment

Attachment 5 -

NDA

The RFP number in the first paragraph of the NDA is listed as N0003925F9510 instead of the correct number, N0003925R9512. How would you like to proceed?

Should I go ahead and correct the RFP number, or will the Government be issuing a revised NDA?

Additionally, the DD Form 2345 is submitted online. Is this acceptable? We are still awaiting approval. Our previous approval has expired, and since the proposal is due on 7/29/2025, is there any way to expedite the approval process so we can access the CUI documents?

The Government amended the Attachment 5 - NDA. Offerors previous submissions of Attachment 5 - NDA do not require resubmission. See Amendment 0004.

An approved DD2345 is required under RFP section L-204-HQ002 CUI SOLICITATION / RFI LANGUAGE – ALTERNATE II. If assistance with the DD2345 application is required, please inquire at the JCP-ADMIN@DLA.MIL, (877) 352-2255.

Yes. See Amendment

No. Section # Section Title Page # Question / Issue Government Response Will Result In RFP Change?

59 SOW 3.2.2 14

“As directed by individual DO, the Contractor shall configure and test the system in accordance with applicable Factory Acceptance Test documents provided with the TDP. (CDRLs A00B, A00C)”

Are the configuration / test plans maintained by the customer or the contractor? If they are customer maintained, can they be provided as part of the RFP or with the TDP document?

The Government maintains configuration control for the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) document.

Test requirements will be Government Furnished Information, provided at award of respective delivery orders.

No.

60 L-204-HQ003

“Offerors shall submit proposals electronically to NAVWAR no later than 1400 San Diego local time on 29 July 2025 according to the instructions contained in this provision.”

If additional technical data will be provided with the TDP, would the Government consider granting an extension for the receipt of offers to August 5, 2025?

The Government concurs with the request for extension to 1400 PDT August 5, 2025.

Yes. See Amendment

61 L-204-HQ003

“Offerors shall submit one “PDF” file per section in each Volume. All Volume section files shall be compressed into one ZIP file per Volume to the maximum extent practical. Electronic copies shall be submitted via SAM.gov.”

Is there a specific file size limit for submission in SAM.gov?

The Government confirms that proposals are to be submitted via the Solicitation Module in PIEE.

The PIEE file size limitation is 10 MB per individual file attachment with a total aggregate limit of 50 MB. See answer to question 52. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment

RFP Section L, 3.2, Section 10

“Offerors are encouraged to execute a proposal access agreement with these support contractors via a PDPA. Offerors shall include fully executed PDPAs within the Volume II submission, if applicable.”

Given that Alpha Omega Group LLC and Systems Technology Forum LTD are assisting with this proposal for administrative purposes only and considering that these contractors should already be bound by use and disclosure terms in their existing contracts with the Government to protect all submitted proposal material from inappropriate use, recommend the Government remove this clause thereby relying on existing contractual protections rather than requiring additional agreements.

Execution of Proprietary Data Protection Agreements are at the discretion of the Offeror, as supplements to the existing Government / Support Contractor discloure agreements. Responses to this solicitation MUST clearly state whether permission is granted allowing the contractor support identified above access to the contractor’s proposal

No.

63 Section L 2.1.2

“Format: A page is defined as a sheet of paper that includes information. The electronic proposal shall be prepared for printing on 8 1/2" x 11" paper format with single-spaced typed lines, including figures, glossaries, tables of contents and cover sheets. A partial page counts as a full page.

Type size shall be Times New Roman 12 point in the text, 10 point in spreadsheets and tables, and 8 point in drawings and figures. Standard margins shall be a minimum of one inch, excluding header and footer.”

Can the Government confirm that we can keep the provided formatting for Attachment 4 – Relevant Experience Form?

See answer to question 17 from QA Set 01, dated 02 July 2025. No.

64 Section L 3.1.4

“If available, Offerors shall submit the most recent Contractor Past Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations for each of the experiences identified above.”

Can the Government confirm that CPARS are not part of the 9 page limit for Factor 4 – Past Performance?

The Government confirms that CPARS are not part of the 9 page limit for Factor 4 – Past Performance.

No.

No. Section # Section Title Page # Question / Issue Government Response Will Result In RFP Change?

65 Section L 3.2.8

“3.2.8 Security Clearance Levels”

Since there is already a 3.2.8 for Small Business Subcontracting Plan and it is not shown as one of the required sections in the table under Section 3.2, can the Government please confirm if 3.2.8 Security Clearance Levels should be a Section for Volume II or if it should be removed from Section L?

The Government has clarified Section L to reflect Section 3.2.11 for SECTION 11 - SECURITY CLEARANCE LEVEL. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment

In order to submit a responsive, compliant, and comprehensive proposal, the offeror respectfully requests a four-week extension of the proposal due date of July 29, 2025. This request is necessitated by the fact that we have not yet received responses to our submitted questions. The answers to these questions could potentially impact the content and quality of our proposal.

We kindly ask that the due date be extended by four weeks following the receipt of the government’s responses to allow sufficient time for thorough review and incorporation of the information provided.

See answer to question 60. See Amendment 0004.

Yes. See Amendment