Amendment_0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICAITON NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPIRATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Solicitation Number: N00173-15-R-SE05 Amendment 0005

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the language in reference to the Integrated Warfare System Architecture Description Document on Page 7 of the SOW and to the answer questions received from potential offerors.

1. Delete the sub bullet under the first bullet in paragraph 3 on Page 7 of the SOW and replace with the following:

o For a general understanding of the meaning of “open architecture” within the context of this RFP please refer to the document titled ‘SURFACE NAVY COMBAT SYSTEMS

SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINE ARCHITECTURE -ARCHITECTURE DESCRIPTION

DOCUMENT’ posted with restricted access as an amendment to the RFP. The document is provided as general guidance on desirable characteristics for the proposed system and is not intended to set specific requirements for this procurement.”

2. Answer questions from potential offerors:

Question 1: The RFP, in two (2) sections (RFP Attachment 1, P. 5 and Attachment 1, P. 6, Table 1), calls out MTBF as both a desire and a requirement in the specification. Given that modern day tactical cryogenic coolers range in MTBF from 12,000 to 30,000 hours with a requirement for a 360 degrees system with 0.25mrad IFOV with 45 degree elevation system, a minimum of 4 to a nominal 8 cryo-coolers are required for the SPECSS sensor, dewars, electronics, and visible sensors as additional MTBF factors.

With a configuration of 30,000 hour MTBF and a minimum of four (4) cryo-coolers, the coolers alone reduce the MTBF by 7,500 hours.

Should the MTBF--under this RFP--remain a desire and that “CESARS” not fund a next generation cooler design for large capacity cryo-coolers.

Answer: It is understood that meeting the system MTBF is extremely challenging because of the referenced cooler lifetimes. It is not the intent of this procurement to provide significant funding for advanced cooler development.

Question 2: The SPECSS proposal references a government document “Integrated Warfare System Architecture Description Document”. A link is provided, https://acc.dau.mil/SHARE, but we cannot access it as we don’t have an account nor a sponsor. Can you please send us a copy of the document?

Answer: The Integrated Warfare System Architecture Description Document is attached to this amendment as a sensitive attachment labeled PEO_IWS_ADD_Rev_1_Baseline_20090731_(6).pdf.

Directions to request controlled documents on FBO have also been attached to this amendment labeled Requesting Controlled Documents on FBO.

Question 3: The introductory paragraph of the RFP SOW (below) describes the CESARS FNC as including both SPECSS and MEIRCAT:

“The Combined EO/IR Surveillance and Response System (CESARS) program is an ONR Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) effort scheduled to start in FY16 that provides comprehensive shipboard defense against optically guided anti-ship missile threats. The program objective is to develop a TRL6 maturity level system suitable for limited testing onboard a naval vessel. It includes an enhanced electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) countermeasure (CM) and situational https://acc.dau.mil/SHARE https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=29c0703302e0ae27a3d92a3d237fbbc4

Solicitation Number: N00173-15-R-SE05 Amendment 0005 awareness capability. There are two distinct functions defined within the FNC that constitute CESARS: Shipboard Panoramic EO/IR Cueing and Surveillance System (SPECSS) and Multispectral EO/IR Countermeasures for Advanced Threats (MEIRCAT).”

However, the SPECSS and MEIRCAT efforts are being procured separately by NRL under two separate solicitations, not one.

Does this mean that there are now two separate FNCs or are they both still under one FNC?

Answer: There is only one FNC program. It is CESARS.

If not, what is the reason for the two separate solicitations if they are part of the same FNC?

Answer: There are two separate solicitations because of the differing security requirements related to each.

It is our understanding that typical FNCs are funded in the range of $35M over approximately a four-year period. However, based on the SOW high level of performance requirements and the required delivery of full 360o capability for the demonstrator hardware, there is significant concern that the MEIRCAT and SPECSS efforts could individually consume most of the funding for a typical FNC.

Is the CESARS FNC funded at a higher level (than the typical FNC) since there are two major FNC efforts within one overall FNC? Or, are MEIRCAT and SPECSS each funded at the level of a typical FNC?

Please provide the anticipated funding level by fiscal year for CESARS and for each of the two solicitations; the MEIRCAT solicitation and the SPECSS solicitation. Note: It is quite common for the Government to provide anticipated funding levels in solicitations for technology demonstrator efforts as guidance to industry for program planning and sizing purposes.

Answer: Your understanding of a typical funding level and duration for FNC programs is accurate and is “in the ballpark” for the subject program. Given the competitive nature of the procurement it would not be appropriate to provide detailed budgetary information at this time. The funding profile is expected to be relatively flat for both solicitations and the split between the two solicitations is roughly 40/60

(SPECSS/MEIRCAT).

Naval Research Laboratory - SSC Department of the Navy Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-5004

See Page 2