Amendment_3_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 address additional questions submitted by industry.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-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 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

25-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 answer additional questions submitted by industry. Accordingly, subject solicitation is hereby updated as follows:

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

Q1: Reference SOW 3.2.4., Sub-PSI Management Plan Updates, states:

Original Sub-PSI Management Plan shall be provided as part of the Proposal. The offeror shall describe in detail their sub-PSIs for each subsystem and capability module. PSI shall provide an update of the sub-PSI management plan to reflect updates to subsystem and capability module vendors. (CDRL A006) PSI shall specifically address subPSI specific information, formal and informal communication, and detail each sub-PSI role.

Please define a “sub-PSI” by role and contract relationship with the PSI, versus a subsystem and capability module vendor. When the term “sub-PSI” is used, is the Government referring to subcontractors who assist the PSI in the system level integration and test, or is the Government referring to subcontractors who provide the capability modules? The plan, as stated in the SOW 3.2.4, only needs to address sub-PSIs and not the capability module vendors, or does it have to address both?

The sub-PSI references the Prime vendors sub-contractors. The plan, should address both.

Q2: Will the percentages in paragraphs (b) of Clauses HQ B-2-0014 and HQ B-2-0015 be completed at time of award?

Yes. That is correct.

Q3:Please confirm that clause 5252.216-9122 Level of Effort (Dec 2000) only applies to CLIN 0068.

That is correct.

Q4: Section C 3.2.12 mentions an AT Plan and Plans for the next Level of System Integration.

Could the Government please define these two plans and confirm they should be part of CDRL A006?

AT = Anti-Tamper. The requirement for "Approval of AT Plan if needed" has been removed from the SOW. The requirement for "Plans for the next Level of system integration have been accepted" has been removed from the SOW.

Q5:Will the Turnover Meeting defined in CLIN 0002 be conducted at the Contractor’s Facility?

It is anticipated that the turnover meeting will be held at JHU in Baltimore MD; however this will be finalized after contract award.

Q6:Is the following document which was released for the previous solicitation still valid?

INFORMATION ASSURANCE STRATEGY FOR ADVANCED EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE

DISPOSAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM (AEODRS), ACAT IVM, INCREMENT 1; Version 1.0; 28 October 2010 Yes.

Q7: Please clarify the Government’s intent for Subfactor 1; the wording indicates the Contractor is to describe the approach to completing the work in the SOW yet other subfactors are focused on several specific SOW requirements which could create duplication or redundancy in the proposal narrative or a potential compliance issue.

The first sentence in Subfactor 1 has been updated.

Q8: Reference SOW Paragraph 2.2, Other Applicable Documents (page 44 of 181). Are the documents listed herein ITAR restricted?

The documents are marked as Distribution Statement C and do not contain export controlled technical data. This statement does not apply to the actual system design in the future.

Q9: Reference Section M, Volume V: Factor 4 – Cost/Price (page 181 of the RFP) states that it is the Government’s desire that all noncommercial data and software be delivered with a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (GPR). Additionally, if an Offeror proposed to deliver any such data/software with less than unlimited rights, the Government will evaluate the cost impacts for all data/software that the Offeror proposes to deliver with restrictions on the Government’s ability to use, release or disclose such data/software.

The Government will evaluate the adverse impact of less than GPR in its best value determination. Section M further indicates that it is the Government's goal is to obtain a price for Option CLIN 0067 (Product Level Technical Data Package (TDP)). Additionally, the RFP states:

“In the event the Government determines that there will be a cost increase because an Offeror has failed to provide GPR or to propose a price for the product level TDP with made…” GPR, an upward adjustment to that Offeror's price will be Question: Does this mean that GPR or a priced option for GPR is required for the product level TDP (Option CLIN 0067), but that items provided prior to the product level TDP (e.g.

CLIN 0009, Developmental Level TDP), may be delivered with less than GPR (e.g. SBIR, Limited/Restricted Rights) as long as the product level TDP is delivered with GPR (either at no cost or as a priced option)?

Clause 252.227-7017 applies to all CLINs. The instructions in Section M only apply to

CLIN 0067.

Also, is it the Government’s intent to assess the 10% penalty on the entire product level unit price, or only the module which contains items with less than GPR?

The entire product level unit price will be used. As described in Section M, for evaluation purposes, proposal will be “increased by 10 percent of the proposed maximum unit target price in CLIN 0026 multiplied by 1077 total units planned to be procured under Full Rate Production to account for the lack of GPR.”

Q10: Section L (page 160) states that spreadsheets must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2007 but then on page 170 it states that “Only Microsoft Excel is acceptable (version 97-2003);

any later version of Microsoft Excel is NOT ACCEPTABLE)”. The Stepladder Template the Government provided as Attachment B to the solicitation is in a higher version of Excel than 97- 2003. It would be preferable to be able to submit reports in Microsoft 2007-2010 format which is compatible with Microsoft 2007. Running reports for these large programs in Excel 97-2003 can be problematic since the lower version of Excel has a limited number of columns for data.

Question: Will the Government allow Offerors to submit spreadsheets in Microsoft 2007-2010 format which is compatible with Microsoft 2007?

Yes, that is acceptable.

Q11: Reference Volume V - Cost/Price, 2nd paragraph on page 167. The solicitation states “The offeror shall provide the following information for the Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs, 0005, 0006, 0016, and 0017.” There aren’t any instructions following this sentence for these CLINs as the next sentence references other CLINs.

Question: Offeror requests clarification from the Government as to the level of cost/pricing detail required for the CPIF CLINs 0005, 0006, 0016 and 0017.

This section has been updated with the applicable paragraphs numbers from 1-4.

Q12: Reference Volume V – Cost/Price, subparagraph b. Labor Hours (page 168). Does the reference to “fiscal year” refer to Contractor or Government Fiscal Year?

Contractor’s fiscal year

Q13: Reference Volume V – Cost/Price (page 169). The solicitation states: “The Offeror shall propose the Unit and Total Price for each of the following Firm Fixed Price CLINs 0001-0004, 0008-0015, 0018, 0019, 0022-0025, 0031, 0038…” However, on page 170 the solicitation states that “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.”

Question: Offeror requests confirmation from the Government that CLIN 0022 is Not Separately Priced (NSP) and thus no dollar amount shall be included in Section B for this

CLIN.

That is correct with regards to section b. CLIN 0022 has been removed from the FFP paragraph. Volume V is clear on requirement for CDRL blocks for analytical purposes only.

Q14: Reference Section M (page 180). The fifth paragraph on this page appears to be missing some CPIF CLIN references and includes some non-CPIF CLINs. Offeror requests clarification that this paragraph should contain all CPIF CLINs as noted below:

“The Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) CLINs, 0005-0007, 0016, 0017, 0029, 0030, 0036, 0037, 0042, 0043, 0044, 0048, 0050, 0051, 0054, 0057, 0058, 0060, 0064 and 0065 will be evaluated based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost proposal. if the target cost is considered unrealistic, the target cost will be adjusted upward to reflect a more realistic cost.

If no adjustments are made, the evaluated price will be the proposed target cost plus the proposed target fee. If the target cost is adjusted, the evaluated price will be the adjusted target cost plus the target fee adjusted IAW FAR 52.216-10, Incentive Fee.”

Section M has been updated.

Q15: Reference Incentive Fee Instructions (page 36). In light of the RFP-required 50/50 share ratio for the CPIF portion of the fee structure, would the Government consider raising the minimum fee percentage from 0% up to 3%?

Generally, this would yield little to no fee because this amount of fee is necessary to cover disallowed program costs.

The minimum fee will not be changed.

Q16: CDRL A017 under Critical Design Review Package SOW 3.2.12. Is there a limitation on how early in the program this plan can be turned in for approval to order long lead items to support the manufacturing/fabrication plan?

CDRL A017 is the Manufacturing Technology Demonstration Plan. It is due 15 calendar days prior to the start of CDR. The vendor is free to order long lead items for the PRMs any time after issuance of the PRM order. The long lead items being referred to in the SOW are for production units.

The last sentence in the first paragraph in SOW 3.2.12 has been updated.

Q17: In the SOW paragraph 3.2.16, it is noted that the PSI shall complete testing on all DLRP and PRM modules and systems. Does this mean that the government requires all of the deliverable PRM and DLRP units must undergo Environmental and E3 testing?

Assuming that each of the respective Capabilty Modules, Subsystems, and PRMs are identical, then testing one instance of each is acceptable.

Q18: In reference to Section B, the below CLINS for production scheduling and capacity purposes, could the government please identify what the quantities of DLRPs and Consumable Kits are for each “lot”? OR is it the government’s intent for capacity and scheduling purposes to follow the same direction as pricing and use the same quantities for DLRPs and consumable kits as production systems in each option year?

CLIN # Qty UOM Description

0027 1 Lot DLRP

0028 1 Lot Consumables

0034 1 Lot DLRP

0035 1 Lot Consumables

0041 1 Lot DLRP

0042 1 Lot Consumables

0048 1 Lot DLRP

0049 1 Lot Consumables

0055 1 Lot DLRP

0056 1 Lot Consumables

0062 1 Lot DLRP

0063 1 Lot Consumables

The quantity per year is outlined in Section L. For proposal purposes, the full production DLRP and Consumables clins are for the same quantity as that same year’s production system clin.

Q19: Section C, Page 55, SOW 3.2.19 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals, and Page 58, SOW 3.3.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals, states The PSI shall deliver Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals to cover the entire system and each individual subsystem capability module.

The requirement for both SOW references is for the contractor to develop manuals in accordance with CDRL Item A024, but CDRL A024 is for Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Manuals whereby the Contractor only provides supplemental data to the COTS Manual. The Capability Modules and the complete system are not COTS items and there are no COTS manuals. Does the Government intend to revise CDRL A024 and the associated DID to reflect contractor formatted documents and not COTS?

The Government does not intend to rewrite the DiD associated with CDRL A024. The following requirements contained within DiD TI-TMSS-80527C are waived: 2-Evaluation, 3-Supplementation, 7-IETMs, and 8-Paper manuals. MIL-PRF-32216A will not be used as an evaluation tool. However, the Government recommends using the evaluation criteria contained within MIL-PRF-32216A as a guide for development of the O&M manuals.

Q20: MPS-MOB-1 V1.4 states (T) The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall draw no greater than 5A steady state and no greater than 10A peak (3.5 seconds max). MPS-MOB V1.2 which the pPRM was built to states (T) The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall draw no greater than 5A steady state and no greater than 20A peak (2.5 seconds max). Was it the government’s intent to reduce the peak power to the MOB from 20A to 10A? If it was the government’s intent to reduce the power in half is the pPRM compliant?

The reduction in the peak current from 20A to 10A was a correction that reflects the overall limits in the specification for CM_PWR. The 20A peak supply current from CM_PWR must support all attached devices, not just CM_MOB. The pPRM version of CM_PWR was capable of supporting the current requirements of the pPRM version of CM_MOB. The Government will have no comment on the compliancy of the pPRM.

Q21: MPS-MOB-1 V1.4 States (T) The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall draw no greater than 5A steady state and no greater than 10A peak (3.5 seconds max). The MPS-PWR-1 V1.4 states (T) The Dismounted Operations Power System CM bus shall allow current draws greater than the 20A peak load for at least 25msec. Is the MOB allowed to draw greater than 20A for up to 25msec?

No. The ability of CM_PWRto provide greater than 20A for at least 25 msec must support all attached devices; therefore, this limit should not be interpreted as an allocation to any single CM.

Q22: MPS-MAN-1 V1.4 states (T) The Dismounted Operations Manipulator shall draw no greater than 1.25A steady state and no greater than a 3.75A peak (2.5 sec max). Note: the Peak current for CM-MAN is an individual CM design parameter and the peak current in conjunction with CM-VIS and CM-EEF must be limited to 2.5A peak.

MPS-EEF-1 V1.4 states (T) The Dismounted Operations End-Effector shall draw no greater than .75A steady state and no greater than a 3.25A peak (2.5 sec max). Note: the Peak current for CM-EEF is an individual CM design parameter and the peak current in conjunction with CM- VIS and CM-EEF must be limited to 2.0A peak.

MPS-VIS-1 V1.4 states (T) The Dismounted Operations Visual Sensors CM primary Visual Sensor CM shall draw no greater than .5A steady state.

In ICD-PWR-1 the Table 14 Channel 2 for CM-MAN/EEF/VIS has a max steady state current of 2.5A and a Peak current of 5A.

Should the aforementioned MAN and EEF requirements read such that the steady state current draw sum is not to exceed 2.5A or that the peak current sums should not exceed 5A? If the operator tries to grab an object and lift it at the same time to the maximum currents of each CM the current draw for the channel will exceed 5A (3.75A for MAN, 3.25A for EEF, .5A for VIS).

How should this case be handled at the system level if all CM’s are compliant to their requirement and the operator can initiate this scenario?

The peak allocations for MAN and EEF in V1.4 are incorrect. These should be:

- CM_MAN: 1.5 A steady state / 2.5 A peak

- CM_EEF: 0.75 A steady state / 1.5 A peak

- CM_VIS: 0.5 A steady state / 1.0 A peak

The total combined allocation for CM_MAN/CM_EEF/CM_VIS is correct (2.5 A steady state/5.0 A peak).

Q23: Section C, Page 55, SOW 3.2.21 PRM / First Article; cites the requirement to deliver “Batteries-two (2) sets per system”. What type batteries are being requested: 2 sets of UGV batteries and 2 sets of HOUC batteries, or UGV batteries only?

Government requests two (2) sets of UGV batteries and two (2) sets of HOCU batteries.

Q24: Reference proposal DD 254; Is there a requirement for classified AIS (processing), SIPRNet or STE usage on the contract? Defense Security Service (DSS) doesn’t recognize Blk 11b as authority to have these capabilities. When 11c. is marked “YES”, it justifies the contractor submitting an AIS system security plan(s) for approval by DSS/ODAA to fulfill contractual obligations.

At this time there is no requirement for classified AIS (processing), SIPRNet or STE usage on the contract.

Q25: Reference proposal DD 254; Will the Prime Contractor be listed as a place of performance on the DD254, Blk 8? There’s a conflict between Blks 1a and 1b requiring the contractor have a Secret FCL and Storage capability and not listed as a place of performance; currently only NSWC IHEODTD is listed in Blk 8.

When the contract is awarded, the DD254 will be updated and the company information will entered into block 6a. Block 8a will be for the location in which the work is being done. For block 1a, this will need to reflect the company clearance required for the contract. Block 1b will need to reflect the contract's safeguarding clearance, if they are listed in 8a, then their company needs to have the same safeguarding level.

Q26: Reference proposal DD 254; Will Prime Contractor personnel be responsible for accessing government IT Systems in support of this contract? If so, experience tell us from past contracts that the Command Security (Navy) Manager is responsible for submitting the background investigations for IT-I/II (Sys Admins) requiring access in support of a contract. Please confirm this requirement.

There is no requirement for access to IT systems. The verbiage for 11L still remains in the contract because it is a "If and When" clause. The Government might not require it now or ever but it is there to let you know what is required if the need arises.

Q27: Price: Section H, Clause 5252.216-9122 Level of Effort (Dec 200) on Page 103, 2d sentence, states that the “Total level of effort for the performance of this contract shall be 160 total man-hours…” How should the 160 hours be interpreted and what is the intent of this term?

Does this only relate to CLIN 0068?

Please see answer to Q47 under previous amendment.

Q28: In December 2013, the Government answered question 27 as follows:

“Question #27: Statement of Work section 1 states “the PSI is restricted from also developing any system modules for the AEODRS system.” Our understanding is that this statement limited to just the actual development of the modules under this contract effort and that the PSI is not restricted relative to other future AEODRS system solicitations. Additionally, in the event of non-performance, unavailability, or impracticability of other system module vendors, or other similar situations, the PSI is allowed to perform production or other module activities as necessary to perform its contractual obligations or in the alternative the PSI is alleviated of such contractual obligations and performance requirements. Can you please confirm or correct this understanding?

Answer #27: The PSI for AEODRS Increment 1 is prohibited from supplying any of the capability modules for Increment 1. This includes situations in which capability module vendors do not perform, are unavailable, or other impracticability of performance. It is the PSI‟s responsibility to select subcontractors capable of performing and to manage these vendors such that the PSI is able to meet its contractual obligations.”

Should the bidders assume the same answer applies?

Yes, this answer applies to this RFP.

Q29: In the current RFP, there is no such explicit instruction:

In Section M of the RFP on page on page 180, the government states “For those items with stepladder quantities, CLINs 0026-0028, 0033-0035, 0040-0042, 0047- 0049, 0054-0056, and 0061-0063, the Government has determined that it is just as likely that any one of the stepladder quantities for each step-ladder CLIN may be awarded/exercised. Given this, and that the Government seeks realistic pricing for all stepladder CLINs, the Government will use a predetermined (but not disclosed to Offerors) quantity within the range of stepladder quantities to be evaluated for each such CLIN and will evaluate that quantity including the fully burdened unit price (unit cost plus profit). The predetermined quantity within the range of stepladder quantities may be different between CLINs and will be selected prior to the receipt of proposals.”

And later on the same page:

All Phase II DLRP and Consumable CLINs (DLRP's CLINs 0027, 0034, 0041, 0048, and 0055 /Consumables CLINs 0028, 0035, 0042, 0049, and 0056) will be evaluated at the full kit price at the maximum number of units for that year, in accordance with section B.

This would seem to imply that two quantities for the same CLINS will be used for evaluation, can the Government clarify?

All DLRP and Consumable clins (1 Lot) will be proposed in section B at full kit price at the maximum units for that year. This will be used for evaluation as it is the max clin value and will affect max contract value in price analysis. The stepladder pricing will also be evaluated and will be evaluated as described above.

Q30: On Page 180 of the Request for Proposal in Section M, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee paragraph on Evaluated Price CLINS detailed, however the following CPIF CLINs are missing from the paragraph:

0037, 0043, 0044, 0050,0051,0057,0058, In addition, these are FFP CLINS in the paragraph:

0042, 0048, 0054 and this COST CLIN is in the paragraph: 0060 Should not the following CLINS be included: CLIN 0037, 0043, 0044, 0050,0051,0057,0058, and the following CLINS 0048, 0054, 0060 excluded?

On the same page180, the last paragraph for the DLRPs and the Consumables, CLINs 0062 and 0063 are missing.

Please advise.

Section M has been updated.

Q31: Reference page 152 of the Request for Proposal, 252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS. (JAN 2011): Is the intention of Government Purpose Rights (GPR) for the Government to use the technical data package (TDP) for executing competition after the IDIQ contract?

The clause is a required disclosure of technical rights. The Government may use technical data provided with GPR for competitive procurement or other authorized purpose.

Q32: Are any industry questions and answers from the previous request for proposal N00174-13- R-0043 in effect for this current solicitation? Beyond updates to the specifications, which, if any, of the questions and answers apply?

All questions asked and answered under 13-R-0043 do not apply and should be re-asked.

Q33: There is no clear start to the option award or period of performance of when options will be turned on. Can you please clarify? If options are awarded, will Option 1 be awarded first?

Options, if exercised, will be exercised in sequential order within the timeframe spelled out in 52.217-7.

Q34: Reference page 118 of the Request for Proposal, 52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity— Separately Priced Line Item (MAR 1989):

The Government may require the delivery of the numbered line item, identified in the Schedule as an option item, in the quantity and at the price stated in the Schedule. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 24 months of the base period and within 365 days for each additional option year. CLIN 0067 can be exercised at the Government discretion at any time during the life of the contract. Delivery of added items shall continue at the same rate that like items are called for under the contract, unless the parties otherwise agree.

Should the second sentence read „The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 24 months of the base period AWARD and within 365 days for each additional option year‟? Can the customer skip any option years?

The clause has been updated to reflect award.

Q35: Reference page 103 of the Request for Proposal, 5252.216-9122 Level of Effort (DEC 2000) discusses the total level of effort (LOE) for the performance of the contract. However, there are no LOE CLINs identified in the Request for Proposal. Is the government directing that the total LOE hours for this program including all six options not exceed 160 hours? Please advise.

Please see response to Q47 under previous amendment. The contract does have one LOE clin 0068 and this clause is applicable to that clin.

Q36: In December 10, 2013, the Government answered question 42 as follows:

Question #42: The government is requiring MOCU as the handheld OCU software. This is government developed and government supplied software. Does MOCU meet all of the requirements specified for software functionality in the handheld OCU performance specification?

Answer #42: MOCU meets all threshold requirements with the exception of the velocity and torque control modes requirements. These requirements will be implemented prior to contract award.

The response to question 69 of the Government answered questions from December 10, 2013 also states that “The vendor is not required to write any of the MOCU software.”

Who is responsible for modifying MOCU to meet the objective OCU software requirements?

The Govenment is responsible for making modifications to MOCU.

Q37: Reference page 15, section 5.1.1 of the Inc. 1System Spec: The Dismounted Operations System shall perform within mobility requirements (sections 5.2 - 5.11) while carrying a payload weight of at least six (6) pounds or 20% of vehicle weight, whichever is greater.

Reference page 9, section 3.4 of MPS-AEODRS-INC1-MOB: The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall meet its performance specifications with an additional load of 8 lbs. of static payload (distributed so as not to adversely affect the nominal CG) in addition to all appended CMs.

Which document shall take precedence when evaluating the performance requirements for the dismounted operations unit (note that 20% of the maximum allowable dismounted operations unit weight does not exceed 8 lbs)?

The AEODRS Increment 1 Performance Specification is correct. MPS-AEODRS-INC1- MOB Section 3.4 should read:

(T) The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall meet its performance specifications with an additional load of 6 lbs. (or 20% of total vehicle weight, whichever is greater) of static payload (distributed so as not to adversely affect the nominal CG) in addition to all appended CMs.

(O) The Dismounted Operations Mobility CM shall meet its performance specifications with the additional load of the manipulator max lift/carry weight (min 10 lbs.) in addition to 8 lbs. (or 30% of total vehicle weight, whichever is greater) of static payload (distributed so as not to adversely affect the nominal CG) in addition to all appended CMs.

Q38: Reference page 2 of MPS-AEODRS-INC1-COM, the Revision History table indicates that latency, data throughput, and MTBFs were revised in April 2014. However, comparing the revised values in version 1.4 with the values in version 1.3.1 reveals that no changes have occurred. Is this correct?

That is correct. 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.

Q39: Several other instances of inconsistencies in the Revision Tables exist in the other version

1.4 MPS documents. MTBF values appear to not be modified in any of the documents except for CM-MAS even though the revision tables indicate that an update has occurred. See MPS-

AEODRS-INC1-AB, MPS-AEODRS-INC1-EEF, MPS-AEODRS-INC1-MAN, MPS-

AEODRS-INC1-MOB, MPS-AEODRS-INC1-OCU, MPS-AEODRS-INC1-PWR, MPS-

AEODRS-INC1-VIS, and MPS-AEODRS-INC1-MAS.

Is this correct?

That is correct. 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.

Q40: Reference page 2 of MPS-AEODRS-INC1-MAN, the Revision History table indicates that message routing, packet error loss, latency, direct sunlight material degradation, and MTBFs were revised in April 2014. However, comparing the revised values in version 1.4 with the values in version 1.3.1 reveals that no changes have occurred in these areas. With regard to message routing and packet error loss, the information was not added.

Is this correct?

That is correct. No change was intended between Version 1.3.1 and Version 1.4. This information was revised in Version 1.3.1. The Revision History should show those revisions for Version 1.3.1, not for Version 1.4.

Q41: Reference page 2 of MPS-AEODRS-INC1-OCU, the Revision History table indicates that screen dimensions and MTBFs were revised in April 2014. However, comparing the revised values in version 1.4 with the values in version 1.3.1 reveals that no changes have occurred in these areas.

Is this correct?

That is correct. No change was intended between Version 1.3.1 and Version 1.4. This information was revised in Version 1.3.1. The Revision History should show those revisions for Version 1.3.1, not for Version 1.4.

Q42: Reference page 9 of MPS-AEODRS-INC123-MAS, the updated MTBF is unclear as two values are listed in the revised requirement:

(T) The CM-MAS-123 within the Dismounted, Tactical, and Base/Infrastructure Operations Master Suite shall have a calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 356 712 hours.

(O) The CM-MAS-123 within the Dismounted, Tactical, and Base/Infrastructure Operations Master Suite shall have a calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 731 4387 hours.

What are the correct MTBF values?

16. Reference page 2 of MPS-AEODRS-INC123-MAS, the Revision History table indicates that message routing, packet error loss, latency, direct sunlight material degradation, and MTBFs were revised in April 2014. However, comparing the revised values in version 1.4 with the values in version 1.3.1 reveals that no changes have occurred in these areas.

Is this correct?

With respect to MTBF, MPS-AEODRS-INC123-MAS should read:

(T) The CM-MAS-123 within the Dismounted, Tactical, and Base/Infrastructure Operations Master Suite shall have a calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 712 hours.

(O) The CM-MAS-123 within the Dismounted, Tactical, and Base/Infrastructure Operations Master Suite shall have a calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 4387 hours.

Q43: Reference page 2 of MPS-AEODRS-INC123-MAS, the Revision History table indicates that message routing, packet error loss, latency, direct sunlight material degradation, and MTBFs were revised in April 2014. However, comparing the revised values in version 1.4 with the values in version 1.3.1 reveals that no changes have occurred in these areas.

Is this correct?

That is correct. No change was intended between Version 1.3.1 and Version 1.4. This information was revised in Version 1.3.1. The Revision History should show those revisions for Version 1.3.1, not for Version 1.4.

Q44: The complete list of all GFE/GFI on pg. 106 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) only includes the pPRM as GFE/GFI. However, some specifications list requirements to use government hardware and software (such as the use of MOCU in MPS-AEODRS-INC1-OCU or a SAASM compliant GPS in MPS-AEODRS-INC1-AB).

Can you provide a complete list of all GFE/GFI items including all software and hardware provided by the government?

The Government intends to provide:

- pre-Production Representative Model (pPRM)

- Multi-Robot Operator Control Unit (MOCU) software and associated documentation

- Autonomous Capability Suite (ACS) software and associated documentation

- System Test Bed (STB) software and associated documentation

The RFP has been updated.

Q45: Reference page 164 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). It says “offeror and all subs shall provide a list of a minimum of three but no more than seven relevant contracts…”. Does this mean each of the subcontractors must have a minimum of three Past Performance (PP) references or that the total of offeror and subs together should have a minimum of three? Do all subcontractors‟ Past Performances need to be listed in the PPIRS database?

Each offeror and subcontractor shall provide a minimum of 3 references. Please see response to Q32 regarding PPIRS under previous amendment.

Q46: Reference page 15 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). In reference to CLIN 27 & 28, it lists a quantity of “LOT”. The directions for schedule B of that CLIN are as follows:

“Offeror stepladder pricing will be incorporated at time of award. Offeror stepladder pricing will be incorporated at time of award. Offeror shall use the lowest stepladder range for the unit price multiplied by the max quantity for the CLIN ceiling.”

We interpret that being, for example lowest range is 1 to 10 at unit price of $500,000.00 each for that range and the Lot Price would be 10 X $500,000.00 or $5,000,000.00. Is this the Governments definition as well? Or, for example, is the multiplier the max amount for these CLINs, in this case, quantity 81, and the Lot Price would be 81 X $500,000.00 or $40,500,000.00.

Please clarify.

The max quantity of the clin should be the multiplier as demonstrated in the second example.

Q47: In terms of requirements for Government Purpose Rights (GPR), can we assume, for example, if a CM supplier adds a heat sink to a pre-existing commercial module to meet the AEODRS requirements, is the Government asking for GPR for that heat sink or asking for GPR for the entire module and the heat sink?

The Government is requesting GPR for the entire system. With respect to this specific question, the Government is requesting GPR for the entire module and the heat sink.

Q48: Reference page 9 and 13, CLINs 0015 and 0024 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). After reading the Statement of Work paragraphs referenced under each of these CLINs, should the quantity for CLIN 0015 be 1 and the quantity for CLIN 0024 be 5, instead of the reverse as deciphered in the RFP?

Please advise.

This has been updated as part of amendment 0002.

Q49: Requirement for Technical Manuals (CDRL A024) is interpreted to be a hard copy system level COTS O&M manual in accordance with MIL PRF 32216A and nine (9) hard copy supplemental COTS manuals for CMs in accordance with MIL PRF 32216A par 3.2 Supplemental Data and the DLRP factors identified in CDRL block 16.

Is this correct?

The Government does not intend to rewrite the DiD associated with CDRL A024. The following requirements contained within DiD TI-TMSS-80527C are waived: 2-Evaluation, 3-Supplementation, 7-IETMs, and 8-Paper manuals. MIL-PRF-32216A will not be used as an evaluation tool. However, the Government recommends using the evaluation criteria contained within MIL-PRF-32216A as a guide for development of the O&M manuals.

Q50: In the solicitation it does not address the use of 11x17 inch paper (foldouts) in our proposal response; would the government approve and accept the use of 11x17 inch paper in our volumes and have them count at 2 pages when used?

This is acceptable.

Q51: NRE is CLIN 0006 required to be priced as part of the bidder's proposal. However, it references CDRLs 013 and 014. CDRL 013 is for a post-NRE report. CDRL 014 requires a price estimate submission 10 days prior to the execution of the NRE.

. Does the bidder's proposal not satisfy CDRL 014?

. What is the government expecting in CDRL 014 that is not already included in the bidder's proposal?

The purpose of the SAR(CDRL 0013) is to report what contractors used the NRE for.

The purpose of the DTC(CDRL 0014) is to project the contractors plan to discuss their approach for making the cost (NRE investment) in equal importance to the performance and schedule in the evolving design.

The proposal may satisfy CDRL 0014 but updates may be needed in the future.

Q52: Section 3.3.5.3 Supply Management of the subject Request for Proposal (RFP) has the following text:

“The training will be provided in several formats to include classroom training, Computer Based Training (CBT), and or webinar as the training becomes available and needed. In addition, the COLTs training material is available online at http://www.gvionlinetraining.com. The PSI shall utilize the supply chain management database in accordance with the User’s Guide.”

Can the Government please provide a copy of the referenced COLTs User’s Guide above?

The last sentence in section 3.3.5.3 has been updated.

Q53: Page 165 of Solicitation # N00174-14-R-0006, with Amendment 2, states that the offeror’s proposed Project Manager (PM) must have a Bachelor’s degree in a management, business, or accounting discipline. The wording appears to disqualify candidates who have a Bachelor’s and/or Master’s degrees in an engineering discipline, or other relevant degrees and certifications.

Request the Government consider the following alternate qualifications: “The Project Manager must have a Bachelor’s Degree in management, business, accounting, engineering, or science discipline from an accredited college or university, with ten (10) years of professional experience.”

A: The qualifications for the PM in Section L have been updated.

Q54: “Questions 25 and 26 were submitted requesting clarification as to whether the testing required in the RFP is to be at Government expense as stated in the CLINs or at Contractor expense as stated in the First Article clauses included on pages 68, 110, and 111 of the original RFP. In Amendment 2, the government’s answer to Questions 25 and 26 was “Testing required in the SOW should be proposed under the NRE CLIN 0006.” Yet the Conform after Amendment RFP issued with Amendment 2 still has SOW 3.2.16 testing requirements under the Testing CLIN 0011, CLIN 0006 NRE in the RFP only references SOW 3.2.10, and the First Article clauses now on page 69, 112, and 113 of the RFP still state testing is at Contractor expense.

Please clarify that the government intent is that RFP required First Article testing is to be at Government expense as specified in the current CLINs and that the First Article clauses on page 69, 112, and 113 of the RFP are superseded by the CLINs; and in addition that the government published answer to question 25 is in error putting all testing charges under CLIN 0006. Also please clarify that the government intent is that any required testing, SOW paragraph 3.2.16 and/or additional testing, of any additional first articles after Government first article disapproval is at government or contractor expense. Does your answer to this question have any impact on your published answer to question 27?”

CORRECTION – Contractor testing performed should be proposed under CLIN 0011.

The testing required is listed in 3.2.16 of the SOW. The header of the list of tests for Government first article testing has been updated in order to be clear. Section B and the SOW supersedes the clause on page 69. The clause on page 112 and 113 are specific to Government testing after the delivery of the PRM/First Article and are applicable.

Q55: I looking for guidance on how the Subs submit their pricing to DCMA.

Each prospective offeror, if not office is assigned, can visit the DCMA website, www.dcma.gov and find their cognizant office by zip code. A phone number and email address is provided via the website.

Q56: We request an extension of the Subject RFP from 11 Aug 2014 to 26 Aug 2014. This is due to the complexity of this proposal and the need to obtain well-reasoned, accurate technical and pricing responses from the various subsystem and capability module subcontractors and vendors.

The Government will not be extending the response date of the RFP at this time.

Q57: The answers to questions 36, 42, and 43, in Solicitation N00174-14-R-0006, Amendment 2, indicate that the GFE software (SW) will meet the IA and GPSW certification requirements.

The responses further imply that if modifications are required to this GFE SW, the Government will assist the awardee with any build issues, and that resolution will be at “no cost” to the PSI for modifications to the MOCU, ACS, and CM-AB software to meet IA and GPSW certification requirements. In order to ensure that PSI bids are accurate and include all required costs, please confirm that any modifications to the MOCU, ACS, and CM-AB software to meet IA and GPSW certification requirements will be at no-cost to the PSI.

Any modifications to the MOCU and ACS software to meet IA and GPSW certification requirements will be at no cost to the PSI. This is not the case with the CM-AB software.

CM-AB will use ACS like a library - any other software in CM-AB is the responsibility of the PSI and can be completely proprietary. The CM-AB reference design that was provided to the offerors should be considered prototypical and for information purposes only, not "build-to-print", with refinement necessary in order for it to completely comply with ICD-AEODRS-INC1-AB and MPS-AEODRS-INC1-AB and to meet IA and GPSW certification requirements. The PSI assumes all of the risk when using the CM-AB reference design in any way.

Q58: Request the Government confirm that the previously issued Information Assurance (IA) Strategy for AEODRS, ACAT IVM, Increment 1, Version 1.0, dated 28 October 2010, and the response to Question 62, Amendment 0004, Solicitation N00174-13-R-0043, dated 10 December 2013, are still valid and, particularly, the reference to AEODRS designation as a Platform Information Technology (PIT). The response to Question 62, Amendment 0004, stated that the AEODRS family had been designated as a PIT and that the extent to which C&A would be required was still being determined, at that time. The response further stated that the IAVA process does not appear to be required for Increment 1. If the IA, Version 1.0, Strategy document, and the response to Question 62, Amendment 0004, N00174-13-R-0043, are no longer valid, request the Government provide guidance on the current governing IA framework and designation?

The Information Assurance (IA) Strategy for AEODRS, ACAT IVM, Increment 1, Version 1.0, dated 28 October 2010, and the response to Question 62, Amendment 0004, Solicitation N00174-13-R-0043, dated 10 December 2013, are still valid. AEODRS has been designated as PIT

Q59: Will the Government allow use of 11x17 pages for graphics to allow the bidder to comply with the font size requirement? If so will an 11x17 page count as two pages?

Please see response to question 50 above.

Q60: Page 36, Fee Instructions indicates a minimum fee target of zero (0) %; at page 116, FAR 52.216-10 (e) the government has inserted a minimum fee target of 1%; what is the correct minimum fee target for this effort for Incentive Fee CLINS?

52.216-10 has been updated to reflect zero (0%).

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)