Amendment_2_for_release.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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.

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er questions received from industry.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Jul-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00174-14-R-0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Jun-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 1 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 you 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 APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Jul-2014

CODE

NSWC IHEODTD

ATTN: OMAR ROQUE

OMAR.ROQUE@NAVY.MIL

4072 NORTH JACKSON RD

INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5115

N00174 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00174-14-R-0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

*SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to prospective offeror questions and update the RFP. All questions not addressed in this amendment will be responded to in a subsequent amendment. Accordingly, subject solicitation is hereby updated as follows:

1. The following are questions submitted by industry and the Government response:

Q1: The standard test bed provided seems to be the same as the one provided in November 2013 under N00174-13-R-0043. Can you confirm that?

A: That is correct.

Q2: Under the previous RFP for AEODRS Increment 1, Solicitation # N00174-13-R-0043, several questions were answered via Amendments 2 through 5, and in the cancellation notice, dated 1 May 2014. Are the answers that were provided to these questions valid for Solicitation # N00174-14-R-0006, or should those responses be disregarded and new questions submitted for Solicitation # N00174-14-R-0006?

A: New questions should be submitted.

Q3: Section B, Item No 67, page 35 of 181, is for a Product Level TDP. However, the SOW, paragraph 3.2.13, calls for a Production Level TDP. The referenced Mil Std defines TDP Levels (concept, developmental, and production); and TDP types (2D, 3D, with sub-types for 3D).

Request the Government clarify if it is intended that item 67 require a Production Level or a Product Level TDP?

CLIN 0067 has been updated to read Production Level

Q4: CDRL A002 (meeting minutes) does not refer to CLINs 0001 (Kick off meeting) and 0002 (Turnover meeting), but SOW section 3.1.2 (meetings) states “Meeting minutes shall be generated after the conclusion of all meeting to include a detail list of actions and responsible parties and submitted to the Government.” Are meeting minutes not needed for the Kick Off and Turn Over meetings?

A: The Government considers the turnover and kick off meetings along with all other meetings to fall under section 3.1.2.

Q5: CDRL A019 (Demil Plan) – CDRL A019 states “THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT

UPDATES TO THE DEMILITARIZATION AND DISPOSAL PLAN 20 CALENDAR DAYS

PRIOR TO CRICITAL DESIGN REVIEW. “, but it doesn’t state when the initial plan is delivered to the gov’t.

A: The Demil Plan will be produced by the Government. The Government is requesting the source data (SOW Section 3.2.15). Source data to be delivered as part of CDR package.

Q6. Page 170 of 181, 4th paragraph states “The Offeror shall not propose an amount or provide cost information for Data under CLIN 0022 as it is not separately priced. However, the offeror shall complete blocks 17 and 18 on each CDRL form. This data is for analytical purposes only.”

Does filling out blocks 17 and 18 on the CDRL forms only apply to the CDRLs referenced under CLIN 0022 or all the CDRLs?

A: This requirement applies to all CDRLs. This is standard CDRL requirement.

Q7: Page 167, Paragraph 2, states “The offeror shall provide the following information for the Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) CLINs, 0005, 0006, 0016, and 0017. The Offeror shall propose a fully burdened cost inclusive of fee for CLIN 0020, a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion CLIN and CLIN 0068, a CPFF Level of Effort (LOE) CLIN. The Offeror shall propose a fully burdened cost exclusive of fee for the following CLINs: 0021, 0032, 0039, 0046, 0053, 0060, and 0066.” What is the “following information” that needs to be provided for CPIF CLINs?

A: That statement in Sec L has been revised. It is all the paragraphs that follow up to the NTE paragraph.

Q8: For proposal purposes only, will the Government provide a start date for all bidders to use?

A: The Government will not be providing an estimated start date. Projected award will be in

FY15.

Q9: Under CLIN 0003 for the Status Review & PMR, is it the Government’s desire to continue these reviews during the Government testing and User Evaluation period during Phase I?

A: Yes, Status Reviews and PMRs shall be conducted during the Government Testing phase.

Q10: SOW section 3.2.14 Simulator Data Package; SOW states that “the simulator data package shall contain all necessary information …This information includes, but is not limited to, ….”

Please describe the scope of “all necessary information” that is not explicitly enumerated in the items described for this FFP CDRL.

A: Section 3.2.14 has been updated.

Q11: It appears that the quantities specified in Section B, for Items No.15 and 24 are transposed;

that item 15 should be quantity 1 and item 24 should be quantity 5. Request the Government provide clarification on the quantities required for Items No. 15 and 24.

A: The two CLINs have been updated.

Q12: CLIN 0007 in Phase I and CLINs 0030, 0037, 0044, 0051, 0058, and 0065 address Engineering Enhancements. CLIN 0007 identifies a pricing restriction of not to exceed $1,000K.

The SOW in paragraph 3.2.9 indicates that the engineering enhancements will be identified by the Government. (Each of the remaining CLINS in Phase II offer similar, but varying amounts of engineering enhancement funds by option year.)

Is it the intention of the Government for offerors, by default, to consistently include this “not to exceed” figure from each CLIN into their responses to the RFP, or is the offeror expected to provide its best estimate of potential requirements for engineering enhancement funding for CDRL 0007 in its offer to the Government? If the latter is true, what basis does the Government expect the offeror to predict what enhancements the Government is anticipating to identify?

A: Not to exceed clin instructions are included in section L immediately after e. indirect costs:

Q13: In paragraph 3.2.12 of the RFP, a “Technical Management Work Plan” is identified.

Request the Government provide its definition of the contents of this subject plan.

A: Technical Management Work Plan has been removed from 3.2.12.

Q14: Has the Government identified the location of the CDR meeting?

A: Government requests the CDR be conducted at the contractor's facility.

Q15: Within paragraph 3.2.13 of the RFP, one of the exit criteria alludes to approval of an “AT Plan”. Lacking an acronym list, request the Government define what ‘AT’ stands for.

A: For clarification purposes, the reference to AT Plan is under 3.2.12. AT = Anti-Tamper. The requirement for "Approval of AT Plan if needed" has been removed from the SOW.

Q16: Page 68, Paragraph HQ C-2-0033 – Limitation of Liability –High Value Items, lists several CLINS that are subject to the FAR 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability – High Value Items. CLINS 0039 and 0046 are for Travel, and CLINS 0045 and 0052 are for Master Schedule Updates. Additionally CLINS 0042, 0048, 0049, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0061, 0062, and 0063 are not included, these CLINs are for the higher value DLRPs, Consumables, and Production Systems. Request the Government confirm that all the CLINS listed in this paragraph are accurate.

A: Clause has been updated.

Q17: Is the small business subcontracting goal of 30% based on subcontracted dollars or total contract value?

A: Total contract value.

Q18: FAR Clauses 52.215-12 is incorporated by Reference in Section I. Does the Government really require Certified Cost and Pricing data from all Subcontractors since it is anticipated that there will be competition in response to this solicitation?

A: Yes, the Government can still require Certified Cost and Pricing data.

Q19: What is the anticipated award date for this solicitation for pricing purposes?

A: Please see answer above for question 8.

Q20: Two Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clauses are included in the RFP at Section C, Page 69, clause HQ C-2-0037 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUL 2000), and Section L, Page 155, clause HQ L-2-0005 - NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUN 1994); which of these two terms takes precedence and should one of them be deleted from the solicitation?

A: These are two separate clauses.

Q21: Section B. CLIN Structure. It appears that Option Year 6 is missing CLIN “Phase II – Master Schedule Updates and PMR (FFP)”; would you confirm if this CLIN was omitted deliberately?

A: This was deliberate.

Q22: Page 90, 252.232-7006 Wide Area Workflow Payment Instructions. The request for backup documentation for invoices (i.e. timecards) is considered excessive and administratively burdensome and time consuming. We request that this provision be modified to reduce the time consuming nature of the requirement.

A: Request denied. This is a standard DFARs clause.

Q23: Do all the sub-contractors need to be registered to the NAICS code of 334511?

A; They do not.

Q24: Referencing language of “not less than 10 pitch font (Times New Roman)” on page 160, and given that “pitch” generally refers to the number of characters per inch in a horizontal line and that Times New Roman is a proportional font that has a variable pitch per character and therefore ensuring no more than 10 characters in a given inch of text would be difficult and hinder readability, will the Government confirm/correct the font requirement as “not less than 10 point font (Times New Roman)”?

A: Not less than 10 point font is the requirement.

Q25: Referencing clause HQ C-2-0027, First Article (Government Testing) (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990) on page 68, CLINs 0006, 0011, and 0016, and PWS paragraphs 3.2.10, 3.2.16, and 3.2.21, the clause language appears inconsistent with the PWS and the CLIN structure relative to expenses for testing activities. The referenced PWS paragraphs provide for contractor performance of necessary testing at costs and prices per the referenced CLINs. Will the Government please remove the “at its expense” language from the HQ C-2-0027 clause or otherwise clarify (e.g., through operation of the order of precedence) that such testing activities are not at Contractor’s expense?

A: Testing required in the SOW should be proposed under the NRE clin 0006.

Q26: Referencing FAR clause 52.209-4, First Article Approval – Government Testing (SEP 1989) on page 110, FAR clause 52.209-4, First Article Approval – Government Testing (SEP 1989) – Alternate I (JAN 1997) on page 111, CLINS 0006, 0011, 0016 and 0068, and PWS paragraphs 3.2.10, 3.2.16, 3.2.21 and 3.2.25, the clause language appears inconsistent with the PWS and the CLIN structure relative to expenses for testing activities. The referenced PWS paragraphs provide for contractor performance of necessary testing at costs and prices per the referenced CLINs. Will the Government please remove the sentence that “all costs related to these tests are to be borne by the Contractor, including any and all costs for additional tests following a disapproval” from the FAR clauses or otherwise clarify (e.g., through operation of the order of precedence) that such testing activities are not at Contractor’s expense?

A: Please see response above.

Q27: Referencing CLINs 0006, 0011, 0016, 0017, and 0068 and PWS paragraphs 3.2.10, 3.2.16, 3.2.21-22, and 3.2.25, it appears that the contract type for CLIN 0011 (Firm Fixed Price (FFP)) is inconsistent with other CLINs related to the development, production, and testing support (CPIF and CPFF) in Phase 1 for the First Articles. Will the Government please update the contract type for CLIN 11 from FFP to CPIF?

A: CLIN 0011 is correct as an FFP clin.

Q28: Does the period of performance for CLIN 0006, Non-recurring Engineering, run until the end of Phase 1?

A: That is correct.

Q29: The SOW paragraph 3.3.1 indicates the TDP is to be updated over the life of Phase 2 as a result of ECPs. The only Phase 2 CLIN specifically named TDP updates is in Option Year 1, CLIN 0025. Can the government please clarify and provide guidance as to where the cost of TDP updates should be allocated for all Option Years 1 – 6?

A: TDP updates outside of OY1 will only occur as part of ECPs the configuration management clin.

Q30: The Information Assurance requirement in the SOW section 4 requires the PSI shall ensure the engineering processes employed in system design include the implementation of the designated IA Controls per Department of Defense Directive 8500.1 (DoDD 8500.1) and Department of Defense Instruction 8500.2 (DoDI 8500.2) for systems possessing a Mission Assurance Category (MAC) Level of II and a Classification Level (CL) of Classified, and that IA measures and design characteristics listed in the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) are correctly implemented. From the system design perspective, does the government defined and required architecture, interface, and performance documentation currently comply?

A: From the system design perspective, the Government defined and required architecture, interface, and performance documentation does not preclude the implementation of IA measures and design characteristics listed in the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs). It is the responsibility of the PSI in conference with the government to ensure that IA controls are developed and implemented in a manner that both meets the defined IA level and classification of the system while also complying with the AEODRS architecture, interfaces, and performance documentation.

Q31: It was noted that the PSI can make module level tradeoffs in weight so long as the system requirement is met. Is this also true of volume requirements?

A: The PSI can make module volume tradeoffs so long as the tradeoffs do not preclude meeting stated system requirements and other module requirements. It is expected that after any volume tradeoffs, the modules retain their defined functional partitioning, i.e. that the subsystem or CM must remain manufacturable and replaceable as an independent module.

Q32: Will the gov't accept past performance that is NOT listed in PPIRS? Many small businesses have highly relevant past performance that are not in PPIRS.

A: The Government prefers relevant contracts listed in PPIRS but will consider relevant non- PPIRS past performance.

Q33: From the module MPS “(T) The Dismounted Operations Autonomous Behaviors CM shall be painted with a finish that complies with MIL-DTL-64159B for FED-STD 595C Color Code 33446, description Tan 686A, for all rigid components (e.g., enclosures, housings, platforms) not to include connectors, wiring harnesses, compliant components, etc.”. Are exposed heatsinks required to be painted? This would affect performance and therefore the design.

A: Exposed heatsinks are required to be painted.

Q34: According to the largest and most knowledgeable SASSM GPS supplier, no software-upgradable modules are approved by the GPS Directorate to go from Y-Code to M-Code. The GPS Directorate will not certify M-Code GPS chipsets to operate solely for Y-Code. The M-

Code constellations is not set to go fully live until the Gov’t completes the Satellite Control Segment, OCX Block II, around FY’22 or so. Given that, it doesn’t seem as if M-Code is possible right now. Can the government please provide guidance?

A: "M-Code requirement for CM-AB will be rescinded until such time that the infrastructure to support M-Code is in place. Awardee may be requested to provide a POA&M to transition from current P/Y configuration to M-Code configuration."

Q35: The AB-MPS change log for 1.4 says that MTBF numbers were changed. However, they are the same as in v 1.3.1. Can the gov’t clarify whether any change was intended? T=949 and O = 5849 in 1.3.1 and 1.4

A: No change was intended between Version 1.3.1 and Version 1.4. The MTBF numbers in the SPS and all MPSs were revised in Version 1.3.1. The Revision History should show "revised MTBFs" for Version 1.3.1, not for Version 1.4.

Q36: Will all ACS and JTS autonomy software be delivered to awardee? Any IP restrictions or NDAs required for accessing the software? The current list of issues with the software in the TDP include are below. Will these be fixed in the final delivery, or is the CM-AB vendor to price in software changes to resolve these issues?

ACS doesn’t finish CMake due to missing directories (ACSDebugOutput) Pre-built binary libraries, but no header files.

References to JTS generated code, but no actual source or headers References to JTS extensions, but no details on what was extended or how

A: The Government will provide the awardee access to the ACS and JTS repositories. The Government will assist the awardee with any build issues at no cost to the awardee. There are no IP restrictions or NDAs required.

Q37: RFP Page 64, HQ C-2-0002 - Can the gov't provide a list of what software or data will require Contractor to sign an NDA?

A: An NDA with RE2, Inc. for the End Effector Interface will be required.

Q38: Ref Page 164 of 181 and page 85 of 181. In reference to the Delivery Plan and desired delivery schedule. Will the customer accept partial, monthly deliveries against the total number of production systems and DLRP’s through-out the option year, or must the deliverable be a one-time shipment of the entire option year quantities within the 180 days listed as the desired schedule?

A: Partial monthly deliveries will be acceptable for full rate production items in phase II only.

Q39: The SOW refers to compliance with the DoD 8500.2 IA controls where part of the DIACAP process which has been replaced with the DoD IA Risk Management Framework (RMF). Are there plans to follow the RMF process instead, and is there a categorization of this information system per CNSSI 1253?

A: AEODRS Increment 1 will comply with DoDI 8510.01 - Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT).

Q40: “The SOW indicates compliance with DoD 8500.2 IA controls for a MAC II Classified system, whereas section 5 indicates that the fully integrated UGV is not classified. Are there any aspects of the operational system (e.g. components, data storage, network interfaces) that cause the system to be Classified, or are the Classified aspects only applicable to the integration environment when handling SAASM GPS?

A: The Classified aspect is only applicable to the integration environment when handling the SAASM GPS. The expectation is that SAASM GPS chipset chosen will meet the requirement that it be Unclassified when keyed.

The UGV is required to transmit classified video and still pictures to the HOCU. No residual video/still picture data can remain stored on the UGV after UGV shutdown.

Q41: CDRL A014 is entitled Design to Cost Plan. The CDRL Remarks are identical to CDRL A013 and do not reflect a typical DTC activity. Is CDRL A014 truly meant to be a Design to Cost Plan?

A: The intent of CDRL A014 (referenced in section 3.2.10 of the SOW) is for the contractor to provide cost estimates for the non-recurring engineering costs necessary associated with each subsystem and capability module.

Q42: Will the Government Furnished CM-AB software be fully compliant with V1.4 of the AEODRS spec?

A: Yes

Q43: Will the Government furnished MOCU software be fully compliant with V1.4 of the AEODRS spec?

A: Yes

Q44: Reference Section B Supplies and Services - Travel CLINs 0021, 0032, 0039, 0046, 0053, 0060, and 0067 & SOW paragraph 6:

The Travel Cost CLINs (identified above) relating to travel cost, appear to require a cost be entered into the Section B form for each of these CLINs as “MAX COST” is shown. Based on our review of SOW Section 6, it appears these CLINS relate to US Government requested travel.

SOW Section 6 Travel (page 64) of the SOW states “The PSI may be required to travel in performance of this contract. Specific travel requirements will be negotiated as required.”

Is it correct to assume the cost shown on the Schedule B for these CLINs be “TBD”?

Please clarify what should be entered into the Section B Supplies and Services for the travel CLINs referenced above.

A: For clarification purposes, CLIN 0066 is a travel clin and 0067 is not. The cost clin should not be TBD. The cost clin should reflect the travel necessary to perform tasks within the PWS.

Q45: Travel related costs – Section L, Cost/Price proposal instructions It is assumed all program related travel associated with the normal performance of various program activates should be included in the appropriate CLIN? For example, in support of CLIN 0006 Non-recurring Engineering, any travel requirements for the PSI associated with this CLIN should be included in the proposed cost for this CLIN.

Is this a correct assumption?

A: Only CLIN 0002 is inclusive of travel. All other travel should be included in the travel clin and not the clin it is in support of.

Q46: Reference Page 170, 3rd paragraph – (DLRP and Consumables CLINs quantities), and Schedule B supplies and services pricing instructions for DLRPs and Consumables:

The pricing instructions on the referenced page 170, 3rd paragraph are in conflict with the instructions shown on the related Section B Supplies and Services for the DLRP and Consumable CLINs.

It is assumed the pricing instructions for the DLRP and Consumables CLINs identified on page 170 (i.e., referenced quantities) should be used to establish the prices to be entered on the Schedule B Supplies and Services.

Is this a correct assumption?

Will the Government change the pricing instructions shown on the Section B – Supplies and Services?

A: Please see the instructions on page 170 that begin “For proposal purposes only”. The clin will be one lot to allow for the purchase of full kits and/or individual parts.

Q47: Section B CLINs 0025 Phase I Interim Support- User Evaluation and 0068 Phase I Interim Support – Gov’t Testing.

CLIN 0025 is a CPFF Completion CLIN CLIN 0068 is a CPFF LOE CLIN

Both CLINs reference SOW paragraph 3.2.5 Reference page 103 of the RFP, 5252.216-9122 LEVEL of EFFORT – this paragraph identifies 160 hours LOE total man-hours of direct labor.

Is it correct to assume this paragraph and associated 160 hours are applicable to CLIN 0068? If not, please clarify what the difference is between these two CLINs

A: That is correct.

Q48: Travel CLINs - 0021, 0032, 0039, 0046, 0053, 0060, and 0067 Reference SOW Section 6 Travel (page64) of the SOW states “The PSI may be required to travel in performance of this contract. Specific travel requirements will be negotiated as required.”

Reference Section L Volume V Cost/Price, page 167, 2nd paragraph of page, last sentence states “the Offeror shall propose fully burdened cost exclusive of fee for the following CLINS 0021, 0032, 0039, 0046, 0053, 0060, and 0066.”

Based on the SOW Section 6 Travel instructions it is assumed this is US Government directed travel. Is this a correct assumption? If it is the US Governments intent for these CLINs to be associated with US Government directed travel, then how does the Offeror comply with the directions reference in Section L above?

A: For clarification purposes – CLIN 0066 is a travel clin and CLIN 0067 is product level TDP

(FFP)

Travel CLINs are cost only exclusive of fee. Please see response to travel in question 44 above.

Q49: Volume V- Cost Price Section L Supporting data requirements, pages 166 - 170:

The information requested is typical for cost type CLINs to establish cost reasonableness. The instructions clearly indicate the required data for the cost type CLINs. However for the FFP CLINs, is the US Governments intent the same data be provided, including disclosure of profit, as that required for the cost type CLINs? Due to the competitive nature of this RFP, and the significant weight identified to cost in Section M, it would be reasonable to assume the competitive nature of the FFP portion would be adequate to determine cost reasonableness for the FFP portion of this solicitation. Would the US Government clarify the minimum data requirements for the FFP effort?

A: Please see second to last bullet in that section and the FFP paragraph.

Q50: Section M, page 180, 6th paragraph related to Cost only CLINs :

This paragraph states the following: “All proposed costs within the Cost Only CLINs, 0021,0032, 0039, 0046, 0052, 0060, and 0066 will be evaluated to ensure allocability and ensure that no fee has been charged. Evaluated amounts will be determined by Government specified NTE, plus applicable burdens.”

For these CLINs, the Schedule B Supplies and Services does not specify a NTE to be used for these CLINs.

Please clarify what is to be used as a base (NTE) for application of burdens.

A: The last sentence regarding NTE’s has been deleted.

Q51: Does the government have a preferred set of ranges for stepladder pricing?

A: The Government does not have a preference.

2. An updated copy of the RFP is attached to this amendment.

3. Questions regarding this amendment should be directed to Omar Roque at omar.roque@navy.mil.

(End of Summary of Changes)