N00173-13-R-PW10-0004.pdf

N00173-13-R-PW10-0004

The purpose of this amendment is answer revise Section M-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, at (c)6, Factor 4: Small Business Utilization, and answer questions from potential offerors.

1. Section M-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, at (c)6, Factor 4: Small Business Utilization, is revised as follows:

6. Factor 4: Small Business Utilization This solicitation is unrestricted. There is a small business subcontracting requirement of thirty percent (30.0%) of the total direct labor cost, at the first tier, as described herein. Offerors that are other-than small businesses are required to submit a small business subcontracting plan, as described in SECTION L, that addresses this requirement. Offers from small business concerns must demonstrate that no single subcontractor will perform more than the small-business prime. Unlike small business set-asides, which require the small business prime to perform at least 50% of the proposed effort, this solicitation is not reserved for small business and therefore the 50% rule does not apply; however, no subcontractor can perform a greater amount of the effort than the prime.

2. The following are answers to questions received from vendors. The numbering of the questions is continued from the previous amendment.

Q. 23. Figure 7-6 of the SOW lists a build-out schedule for the type 3 RFSM. It is unclear how this build-out plan relates to the production schedule. In other words, if the NRL truly expects the entire 94x110 RFSM to be delivered in 28 weeks, than what is the benefit in directing the contractor in what order to build the modules as there appears to be no intermediate testing taking place. One other thought is that the NRL plans to perform the FAT on a system in Stage 1 build-out with the remaining modules to be installed at the customer’s site, although stage 1 does not contain 1 of each module. Without connecting the build-out schedule to the overall program schedule it appears to be extraneous. Please explain the intention.

A. 23. Firstly, the build-out plan assumes, and applied only if, the RFSM architecture is modular.

Assuming a sufficiently large financial budget, NRL would indeed issue an order for an entire 94x110 RFSM (to be delivered in 28 weeks). It is correct that, in this scenario, the build-out plan is not applicable (the vendor delivers the “3rd Stage” in 28 weeks). However, if fiscally constrained (and the design accommodates), NRL might be required to build-up to the 94x110 RFSM in stages. The three stages shown in Figure 7-6 of the SOW are a representative example of a desirable build-out schedule. This schedule correlates to a desirable and commensurate build-out of sensors and mission system equipment that would be connected to the RFSM. In this scenario, NRL would initially issue an order for the Stage 1 build-out (to be delivered in 28 weeks). Following a successful FAT, NRL would field the equipment. At a later date, driven by funding availability, NRL would issue an order for the remaining modules required for the Stage 2 build-out (to be delivered in 28 weeks from issuance of the second order). NRL would install the new modules with already fielded modules, thus providing a “Stage 2 capability” at the customer site. Finally, a third order would be issued for the last remaining modules necessary to achieve the full 94x110 RFSM capability. We realize that in the representative build-out example, some input and output systems are left “unconnected” in the RFSM. This is intentional and corresponds to the aforementioned sensor and mission system build-out plan. Note that Figure 7-6 represents the minimum set of input and output systems that need to interface with the RFSM per build-out stage, with the connectivity as specified in Figure 7-5 of the SOW. Figure 7-6 of the SOW does not necessary list “modules,” as implied in the question above.

Q. 24. It is not clear from the SOW if the three switch types are to be operated together as a single system or to be used individually in different locations. This may have impact on the design of the system control architecture.

N00173-13-R-PW10-0004

Q. 24. While a suite of switches (including one or more of each switch type) is intended to be the core of a single overall RF/IF signal distribution system, we had envisioned that each unit type would be controlled individually through its own control interface. That is, consider a suite consisting of 8 Unit Type 1s, 4 Unit Type 2s and 1 Unit Type 3; all LAN control port interfaces are connected to the same network, and the overarching System Control and Management System would be required to establish a connection with all 13 units in order to configure the entire “single distribution system” to the desired state (in addition to the hardware-driven control interfaces for the Unit Type 1s). However, it is acceptable if the vendor design targets an architecture with a more centralized system control scheme—if that is what is being implied in the question, provided that all specified requirements are met. Regardless of the system control architecture, it is required that one could fully exercise each individual switch unit (excluding the hardware-driven control for Unit Type 1) from a workstation through a direct Ethernet connection via the switch unit’s LAN port.

Q. 25. Question 22 asks for clarification on language from Section M-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, at (c)6, Factor 4: Small Business Utilization. In addition to the language addressed in Question 22, the Government states in this section of the solicitation that, “Offers from small business concerns must demonstrate that no single subcontractor will perform more than the small-business prime.” Please clarify that answer provided to Question 22 was intended only for small business primes, meaning that large business primes are not restricted by language stating that, “no subcontractor can perform a greater amount of the effort than the prime.”

A. 25. See paragraph 1 above, modifying Section M-2.