RFP QA_v1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tactical Combat and Electronic Warfare Systems Research and Development Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0017325RGG04
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) reference file related to Request for Proposal (RFP) N0017325RGG04 for "Tactical Combat and Electronic Warfare Systems Research and Development". The RFP is a Total Small Business Set-Aside issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research.
The key details include:
- Clarification on the proposal format and required documents such as the Proposal Checklist
- Guidance on the use of personal experience and past performance information for small businesses
- Confirmation that DCAA/DCMA verification of the offeror's accounting system is required
- Explanation that AI-driven adaptive systems and AI capabilities for real-time operational adaptability are not a priority at this time, but may be considered in the future
- Information that the use of cloud environments will be sponsor-driven, and the government does not intend to provide benchmarks for processing and operational readiness
- Confirmation that pricing is not required, and offerors will be considered for award as long as they receive an "Acceptable" or higher rating in at least two of the seven task areas.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 0002 - Exhibit A - CDRLs (Updated).pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002 - RFP Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002 - SF 30.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0002 - Attachment 1 - SOW (Updated).pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - Attachment 2 - DD254 (Updated).pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - SF 30.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 - RFP Conformed Copy.pdf | ||
| RFP - N0017325RGG04.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - SOW.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - DD254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - Personnel Qualifications.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - CDRLs.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire .pdf | ||
| Attachment 6 - Proposal Checklist.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Requirements for On-Site Contractors.pdf |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFP N0017325RGG04 Q&A | ||||
| Reference | Question | Response | ||
| 1 | General | Can you let me know if there is a Proposal Format? | ||
| Is it the Proposal Checklist document "Attachment 6 - Proposal Checklist.pdf"? Is this document with no a specific format? | Please review Section L of the solicitation. | |||
| 2 | General | Has there been any industry events where you might have saved a list of interested parties I could reach out to? | No industry events have been conducted. A list of incumbent contractors is contained in the Presolicitation Notice, which was posted to SAM.gov on 07 October 2024. | |
| 3 | SOW | Page 9 of 23, 3.2, a.5. Referenced CDRL is A009 Software Design Description. The Contracting Officer is requested to delete the referenced CDRL. The tasking stated relates to hardware development and advanced hardware capabilities. | Concur | |
| 4 | SOW | Page 10 of 23, 3.2, b.1. Referenced CDRL is A016 Exercise Analysis Report. The Contracting Officer is requested to delete the referenced CDRL or substitute CDRL A011 Computer Software Product or A009 Software Design Description to better match the tasking stated. | Task 3.2, b.1. has been updated to reflect CDRL A014. | |
| 5 | SOW | Page 12 of 23, 3.3, a.8. Referenced CDRL is A014 Software User Manual. The Contracting Officer is requested to delete the referenced CDRL. The tasking stated is related the writing of interface control documents (ICD) for sensor/data systems interface. | Task 3.3, a.8. has been updated to reflect CDRL A019. | |
| 6 | SOW | Page 18 of 23, 3.7, a.2. The Contracting Officer is requested to change the Risk Management Framework acronym to “(RMF)” vice “(RF)”. | Concur | |
| 7 | General | As we are a small business, start up, we are still building our past performance. However, many of our employees have tremendous experience on previous programs. As such, can we use personal experience (prior to joining our company) in our past performance? | The Offeror may submit PPQs and/or CPARS Reports, and Previous Contract Effort Narrative for a maximum of three recent efforts as detailed in RFP Section L-6, Factor 2. Unless there is a corresponding contracting effort for which a PPQ and/or CPARS Report will be provided, submitting past performance information for individuals is not requested. | |
| 8 | General | Our company has an established and adequate accounting system; however, we have not undergone a formal DCAA audit nor DCAA verification of our accounting system. Would the Naval Research Laboratory accept alternate documentation or could they facilitate a verification process through a cognizant audit representative? | In accordance with RFP Section L-6, Volume III, Offeror must have verification from DCAA or DCMA of an accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to this contract. Alternate documentation will not be considered. | |
| 9 | General | Could the Navy clarify its priority on AI-driven adaptive systems for this R&D project? | There is not a priority for AI-driven adaptive systems at this time, but the Government may consider AI-driven adaptive systems for this tasking in the future. | |
| 10 | General | Could the Navy outline the anticipated emphasis on AI capabilities for real-time operational adaptability within the project’s scope? | AI capabilities for real-time operational adaptability are not anticipated at this time, but the Government may consider AI capabilities for real-time operational adaptability for this tasking in the future. | |
| 11 | General | Will this project encourage or require the integration of commercial technologies, and if so, are there specific interoperability standards we should meet to align with existing Navy systems? | The Government will utilize open source software packages. Most standards will be documented in the RMF process, but there are no specific interoperability standards to share at this time. | |
| 12 | SOW | Could the Navy elaborate on the expected scope and frequency of Fleet/Live Fire events under this contract? | Please review SOW Task 3.3 - Fleet/Live Fire Events. Frequency of events can be provided at a later date once confirmed. | |
| 13 | General | What are the Navy’s specific requirements for secure cloud environments under this contract, and does the Navy prefer government or commercial solutions for classified data? | Use of cloud environments (e.g. JIRA, Amazon web services, etc..) will be sponsor-driven, and cannot be accurately identified at this time. | |
| 14 | General | Is there an opportunity for collaboration or coordination with other Navy electronic warfare initiatives? | The Government may consider collaboration with other Navy EW initiatives when determined appropriate. | |
| 15 | General | Could the Navy provide guidance on its benchmarks for processing and operational readiness within this RFP’s framework? | The Government does not intend on providing benchmarks for processing and operational readiness at this time. | |
| 16 | General | Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, we kindly request a 2-week extension from when the answers to questions are released. | Due to the urgency of this requirement, the Government does not intend on extending the proposal due date at this time. | |
| 17 | General | Can the Government please confirm that pricing is not required? | Please review Section L-5 of the solicitation. | |
| 18 | General | Can the Government please confirm that for Factor 1 that as long as at least two of the seven task areas are acceptable or higher, the offeror is still eligible for award, even if it receives an unacceptable in other task areas? | Please review Section M-2 of the solicitation. | |
| 19 | General | Will the Government evaluate offerors more favorably in the overall score if they receive acceptable or higher rating more than 2 task areas? | To be considered for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for Factor 1 for at least two of the seven task areas. An Offeror will not be evaluated more favorably if it receives "Acceptable" or higher ratings in additional Task Areas. | |
| 20 | General | Is a completed copy of Attachment 6 - Proposal Checklist required to be submitted to the Government? | No, but Offerors are encouraged to utilize the proposal checklist to assist with ensuring its proposal complies with the solicitation requirements and is not deficient/unawardable. However, it is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure its proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements (Section L-6). As stated in Section M-6, the Government intends to make award without discussions. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .