N0017818R4017_REV1.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

To update Factor 4 to clarify the total evaluated price and include the questions and answ ers from contractors. Changes to this Solicitation are in Bold lettering.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 21

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Apr-2018

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 N0017818R4017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Mar-2018

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

02-Apr-2018

CODE

NSWCDD 1

17632 DAHLGREN ROAD, BLDG 183, STE 157

DAHLGREN VA 22448-5110

N00178 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0017818R4017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

Ddl-J10 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit A – Contract Data Requirements List, DD1423

Exhibit B – Hardware Specification Achievability Analysis_Rev1

Attachment J.1 – RFQ 0001 – Delivery Order Action Sheet

Attachment J.2 – RFQ 0001 – Statement of Work_Rev1

Attachment J.3 – RFQ 0001 – Contract Data Requirements List, DD1423

Attachment J.4 – Cost Summary Format

Attachment J.5 – Supporting Cost Data

Attachment J.6 – Staffing Matrix

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

Ddl-L25 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS – TECHNICAL AND

MANAGEMENT UNDERSTANDING/CAPABILITY

WRITTEN PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS – ORGANIZATION AND MINIMUM CONTENT

The written technical proposal shall consist of the following items:

Mandatory Requirements

Offerors must meet the requirement or provide a written plan detailing the necessary steps and the timeline to be taken in order to meet them by time of award. In addition, the mandatory requirement must be maintained throughout the life of the Task Order. The mandatory requirement is as follows:

Requirement 1: Facility location

The Offeror’s primary facility must be located within the Continental United States of America (CONUS).

Technical Understanding/Capability/Approach Factor 1

This factor addresses the capabilities of the Offerors. Offerors shall show a clear understanding of the effort required by the Government.

Sub-factor 1 Hand-held Hardware Device Design

Offerors shall demonstrate their understanding of the requirements of the IDS hand-held hardware system to be developed and produced under the SOW. Offerors shall convey how their skills and experience will be used to meet the Government’s requirements.

Offerors shall provide the following to NSWCDD:

1) Design drawings of the hand-held hardware device as described in the SOW for Delivery Order 0001 included in this solicitation. Drawings shall clearly show the location of all sensors, cameras, external interfaces, power inputs, touch screen, the computing platform, and all points where a human will physically interact with the device.

2) A matrix or table showing how the Offeror’s proposed design will meet the requirements for the hand-held hardware device as listed in the SOW for Delivery Order 0001 including those in Exhibit B, the hardware specification list. Offerors shall present a line-by-line listing of the requirements from the Government and a written explanation of how the Offeror will meet each requirement with the proposed design. These explanations shall make detailed reference to the submitted drawings where applicable.

Sub-factor 2 Technical Proposal to Delivery Order 0001

Offerors’ shall provide a technical proposal to complete all of the tasking and meet all of the requirements outlined in attachments J.1, J.2, and J.3 for Delivery Order 0001. If subcontracting or teaming is proposed, the Offeror shall state the specific requirements of the Delivery Order 0001 that each Sub-contractor or team member will perform.

The Offeror shall address the technical reason(s) for selecting each Sub-contractor/team member and highlight any previous working relationships. Offerors shall provide a cost/price proposal based on Delivery Order 0001 identified in Section J Attachment J.1, J.2, and J.3.

Sub-factor 3 Manufacturing Readiness

The Offeror shall address their readiness to produce and deliver a lot size of three hundred eighty five (385) and a lot size of six hundred seventy five (675) hand-held devices. The Offeror shall address the availability of all parts considered replaceable by the Offeror to support a 12-month sparing philosophy. The Offeror shall address their

Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures related to manufacturing. Offerors shall provide evidence of their production and sales of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), modified commercial, or customized integrated multi-modal biometric mobile devices, preferably within the last 2 years but at least within the last 5 years. Specifically, the Offeror shall address their experience in producing and selling devices similar to the integrated hand-held hardware device to be designed and delivered under this contract. Offerors shall also discuss how information submitted under Sub-factor 1 and Sub-factor 2 relates to or builds upon the Offeror’s evidenced experience in the biometrics industry. Offerors shall include any relevant experience with integrating outside software applications onto their devices.

Sub-factor 4 Statement of Work

The Offeror shall address their technical approach and capability to support the requirements described in the SOW.

If subcontracting or teaming is proposed, the Offeror shall state the specific requirements of the SOW that each Sub-contractor or team member will perform. The Offeror shall address the technical reason(s) for selecting each Sub-contractor/team member and any previous working relationships.

Management Capability Factor 2

The Offeror shall demonstrate their approach and ability to effectively manage all efforts under this contract. This shall include the areas listed below. However, Offerors are strongly encouraged to address other aspects of their proposed management approach which they feel will convey their management expertise.

The Offeror shall describe their equipment and facilities and how these resources support the requirements of the

SOW. In addition, the Offeror shall address how work will be managed amongst multiple locations, if the use of multiple locations and facilities is proposed. The Offeror shall present its overall management approach, proposed organization, management structure, liaison with the Contracting Officer, COR, and IDS program technical representatives from the Technical Direction Agent (TDA) and the In-Service Engineering Agent (ISEA), and understanding of and ability to comply with the contract's business management aspects such as progress reporting, risks and risk mitigation, and invoicing. The Offeror shall describe the specific plans and processes that will be implemented to provide quality control over all deliverables, both formal and informal, including those provided by

Sub-contractors/team members/consultants. The Offeror shall include process flow charts and describe each part of the process as applicable. The overall effectiveness of these procedures will be judged by the quality of both the technical and cost proposals in terms of form (spelling, grammar, etc.) and responsiveness to solicitation requirements. Offerors shall describe their approach for increasing efficiency and reducing duplication during performance. Offerors shall describe their approach for controlling unit cost of hardware items and for achieving economies of scale on production lines.

If subcontracting or teaming is proposed, the Offeror shall state the specific requirements of the SOW that each Sub-contractor or team member will perform. The Offeror shall address the technical reason(s) for selecting each Sub-contractor/team member and any previous working relationships. A copy of any subcontracting/teaming/consulting agreements proposed to fulfill any direct charged part of the contract shall be provided. The document shall be signed by both the Offeror and the proposed Sub-contractor/team member/consultant and shall show agreement as to the specific technical work areas to be subcontracted, type of contracting pricing arrangement (FFP, CPIF, CPFF, etc.) and the level of effort to be provided over the contract period.

Past Performance Factor 3

Offerors shall also provide up to three (3) past performance references for work performed as Prime or Sub-

Contractor for the Government within the last five years that demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the proposed contract. The following must be included for each past performance reference:

1) Contract /Task Order number

2) Contract type (e.g. CPFF-term; CPIF-completion; FFP, etc.)

3) Program name and Agency Supported (e.g. IDS Program/NAVSEA)

4) Total contract value. If performed as a Sub-contractor, also include the estimated value of support provided.

5) Brief description of work performed and how the work is relevant to this contract. Bullet format is preferred for this information.

6) Valid names and telephone numbers and e-mails for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

The Government may also use other information such as Award Fee data and CPARS/PPIRS data available from

Government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the

Offeror.

Cost and Price Factor 4

Offerors shall submit a cost proposal for Delivery Order 0001 to include the costs associated with all tasking in the

SOW for Delivery Order 0001. Cost proposals shall include the following:

1) A cost buildup

2) A supporting narrative rationale for the prices proposed, to include the following:

a. Direct Labor: Proposed hours, labor category, direct labor rates, and calculated amounts for each direct labor category by item. As part of the basis of estimate narrative, provide rationale for proposed hours and labor mix. For the direct labor rates, provide payrolls or rationale as to how the direct labor rates were derived.

b. Indirect Rates: Provide three (3) years of historical rates if the Offeror does not have a Forward

Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA)

c. Other Direct Costs: A list of all materials proposed and the rationale for the proposed price.

Provide quotes or previous invoices of material purchased to prove price reasonableness.

3) All other costs and the reductions or rebates offered.

4) Offers shall submit a quote with the unit costs associated with producing and delivering hand-held hardware devices. Offeror’s quotes for five (5) prototype units as described in Delivery Order 0001 attachments J.1, J.2, and J.3

5) Offerors shall submit a quote for an order of 350 units, based upon the quote for step ladder pricing of one (1) to over one thousand five hundred (1,500) production units.

6) Offerors shall submit a quote for step ladder pricing for quantities of one (1) to over one thousand five hundred (1,500) production units in FFP CLIN 0002 as shown in the table below.

Quantity(ies) 1-50 51-200 201-500 501-1000 1001-1500 1501+

Price

The Government will perform an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data and the traceability of the cost to the Offerors’ capability data in accordance with FAR 15.204-1(d)(3). Results of the analysis may be used in assessing performance risk and responsibility. Proposals shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in price may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. Since the resulting contracts will require the delivery of data, the responsiveness and quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal (both technical and price portions) will be considered to be an indication of the Offeror’s quality control processes that would be applied to deliverable data. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

Ddl-L31 COST PROPOSAL – SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS – FIRM FIXED PRICE

The Government has established a Not To Exceed Amount of $34,824,227 as the maximum FFP ceiling of CLIN

0002 in the resulting IDIQ contract. Sections C.4.1 through C.4.4 encompasses the FFP portions of the SOW.

Offerors shall insert this dollar amount in Section B. Offerors shall also provide a cost/price proposal based on

Delivery Order 0001 identified in Section J Attachment J.1, J.2, and J.3.

The Firm-Fixed-Priced cost proposal must provide breakdowns for the following basic cost elements, as applicable:

(a) Purchased/Sub-Contracted Materials and Services. Provide a consolidated priced summary of individual material quantities included in the various tasks, orders, or contract line items being proposed and the basis for pricing (vendor quotes, invoice prices, etc.). Include raw materials, parts, components, assemblies, and services to be produced or performed by others. For all items proposed, identify the item and show the source, quantity, and price. Conduct price analyses of all Sub-Contractor proposals. Conduct cost analyses for all subcontracts when cost or pricing data are submitted by the Sub-Contractor. Include these analyses as part of your own cost proposal submissions. Submit the Sub-Contractor cost or pricing data as part of your own cost or pricing data. These requirements also apply to all subcontractors if required to submit cost or pricing data.

(1) Adequate Price Competition. Provide data showing the degree of competition and the basis for establishing the source and reasonableness of price for those acquisitions (such as subcontracts, purchase orders, material order, etc.) priced on the basis of adequate price competition. For interorganizational transfers priced at other than the cost of comparable competitive commercial work of the division, subsidiary, or affiliate of the contractor, explain the pricing method (see FAR 31.205-26(e)).

(2) All Other. Provide data showing the basis for establishing source and reasonableness of price.

In addition, provide a summary of your cost analysis and a copy of cost or pricing data submitted by the prospective source in support of each subcontract, or purchase order. For standard commercial items fabricated by the offeror that are generally stocked in inventory, provide a separate cost breakdown, if priced based on cost. For interorganizational transfers priced at cost, provide a separate breakdown of cost elements. Analyze the cost or pricing data and submit the results of your analysis of the prospective source's proposal. When submission of a prospective source's cost or pricing data is required as described in this paragraph, it must be included along with your own cost or pricing data submission, as part of your own cost or pricing data. You must also submit any other cost or pricing data obtained from a subcontractor, either actually or by specific identification, along with the results of any analysis performed on that data.

(b) Direct Labor. Provide both a per unit/per CLIN breakdown and a time-phased (e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc.) breakdown of labor hours, rates, and cost by appropriate labor category, and furnish bases for estimates.

(c) Indirect Costs. Indicate how you have computed and applied your indirect costs, including cost breakdowns. Show trends and budgetary data to provide a basis for evaluating the reasonableness of proposed rates.

Indicate the rates used and provide an appropriate explanation. Offerors shall list proposed indirect rates, DCAA recommended rates and actual rates (audited and unaudited). If rates are negotiated forward pricing rates, a copy of the current forward pricing rate agreement shall be provided. If the rates are not negotiated forward pricing rates, then the basis for the proposed rates shall be explained. This section shall also include historically proposed, DCAA recommended and actual (audited and unaudited) indirect rates experienced by the contractor within the past three years and the basis for any changes to these rates.

(d) Other Costs. List all other costs not otherwise included in the categories described above (e.g., special tooling, travel, computer and consultant services, preservation, packaging and packing, spoilage and rework, and

Federal excise tax on finished articles) and provide bases for pricing.

(e) Royalties. If royalties exceed $1,500, you must provide the following information on a separate page for each separate royalty or license fee:

(1) Name and address of licensor.

(2) Date of license agreement.

(3) Patent numbers.

(4) Patent application serial numbers, or other basis on which the royalty is payable.

(5) Brief description (including any part or model numbers of each contract item or component on which the royalty is payable)

(6) Percentage or dollar rate of royalty per unit.

(7) Unit price of contract item.

(8) Number of units.

(9) Total dollar amount of royalties.

(10) If specifically requested by the Contracting Officer, a copy of the current license agreement and identification of applicable claims of specific patents (see FAR 27.204 and 31.205-37).

(f) Facilities Capital Cost of Money. When you elect to claim facilities capital cost of money as an allowable cost, you must submit DD Form 1861 and Form CASB-CMF and show the calculation of the proposed amount (see FAR 31.205-10).

(g) Travel - The Government’s unburdened estimate for travel is listed below. Travel to the following locations is anticipated: Washington DC metropolitan area including Washington DC; the TDA location (Dahlgren, Virginia);

Fredericksburg, Virginia; Norfolk, VA and surrounding area; and the ISEA location (Crane, Indiana). Specific travel requirements will be specified in individual Delivery Orders.

Base YR Option YR 1 Option YR 2 Option YR 3 Option YR 4 Total

Travel $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $67,500

Additional Information. The offeror shall also provide the following information.

(1) The offeror’s shall identify any quantity discounts and information attributable to those discounts to help the

Government determine the most economical purchase quantity.

(2) The offeror shall identify any previous sales in the last five (5) years of same/similar items to include: Contract

Number, Quantity, Unit Price, Total Price and Point of Contact.

Ddl-L40 SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS

It is the offeror's responsibility to bring to the attention of the Contracting Officer at the earliest possible time, but prior to the closing date, any ambiguities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, or conflicts between the SOW and other solicitation documents attached hereto or incorporated by reference. All questions are requested in writing by

16:00 13 April 2018.

Contractor Questions and Answers:

Question 1:

RFP Reference: Page 8 of the RFP, section C4.3 references "mature high-fidelity prototype multi-modal integrated biometric hand-held hardware devices, First Article production representative multi-modal integrated biometric hand-held hardware devices and final baselined configuration multi-modal integrated biometric hand-held hardware devices produced via a proven production process."

Please provide the government's definitions for high-fidelity prototype, First Article and final baselined configuration devices.

ANSWER:

Mature high-fidelity prototype: Fully integrated computing platform, sensors, media storage, batteries, etc., per the requirements defined in the RFP, DO1 SOW and Hardware Specification list, with a technology readiness level

(TRL) of 6 or greater, as defined by the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). Ruggedization and Environmental implementations are not required but traceability should be provided for development prior to final baseline configuration, as required by the PMO.

First Article production representative: Improvement upon mature high-fidelity prototype to include modifications required through government evaluation, ruggedization and environmental, as required. This device will be used for interoperability certification and final government testing and is expected to meet TRL 8 requirements as defined by the DAG.

Final Baseline configuration: Improvements upon First Article production representative to include additional modifications required through government evaluation, as required. This device will be used as the final hardware product baseline for full rate production (FRP) and fielded to the user and is expected to meet TRL 9 requirements upon OT&E or system fielding.

Question 2:

RFP Reference: Page 10 of the RFP, C.7 MANDATORY REQUIREMENT states:

The mandatory requirement must be maintained throughout the life of the Task Order. The mandatory requirement is as follows: Requirement 1: Facility location. The Offeror's primary facility must be located within the

Continental United States of America.

Is this one sentence the extent of the Mandatory Requirements in the RFP?

Yes.

Question 3:

RFP Reference: Page 10 of the RFP, C.7 MANDATORY REQUIREMENT states:

The mandatory requirement must be maintained throughout the life of the Task Order. The mandatory requirement is as follows: Requirement 1: Facility location. The Offeror's primary facility must be located within the

Continental United States of America.

Does primary facility mean Offeror's manufacturing location? Please define primary facility.

In the RFP, “primary facility” means both the manufacturing location and the office with which the government will interface for Technical Interchange Meetings per C.4.7 (Page 9).

Question 4:

RFP Reference: Page 14 of the RFP, HQ C-2-0002, Access to Proprietary Data or Computer Software.

How many Associate Contractor Agreements are to be required?

The number of agreements is dependent upon the technical approach of the offeror. If the contractor needs access to proprietary data or computer software from another contractor, it is their responsibility to apply clause HQ-C-2-

0002.

Question 5:

Are 3rd parties required to cooperate?

The Government does not get involved in 3rd party agreements.

Question 6:

Where are costs for such agreements to be covered? By Delivery Order or Delivery Order Amendment?

Question 7:

Will the Government ensure that 3rd party provided data is reliable?

Question 8:

RFP Reference: Page 33, DDL-20, Ordering, states:

(e) Unilateral Orders. Delivery Orders under this contract will ordinarily be issued after both parties agree on all terms. If the parties fail to agree, the Contracting Officer may require the contractor to perform and any disagreement shall be deemed a dispute within the meaning of the "disputes" clause.

Does the Government recognize that (e) potentially requires a Contractor to perform without allowing the contractor an avenue to reject or provide an alternate solution to the work? To alleviate this concern, Contractor respectfully requests that the Government consider revising the language as follows:

ANSWER: The Government cannot have a potential gap in service. The language in the clause will not be revised.

Question 9:

RFP Reference: Page 96 of the RFP, factor 4, states "Offeror's quotes for five (5) prototype units as described in

Delivery Order 0001 and a quote for step ladder pricing for quantities of one (1) to over one thousand five hundred

(1,500) production units in FFP CLIN 0002 as described in section Ddl-25 Cost and Price Factor 4 will be evaluated."

Is the step ladder pricing for evaluation purposes only or binding for the life of the IDIQ.

The step ladder pricing is for both evaluation purposes and binding for the life of the contract.

Question 10:

RFP Reference: Page 3 of J1_D01-S.PDF Section C4.2.4 states that "The Contractor's design shall meet all of the requirements listed in this section and in Exhibit B of this SOW." This statement appears inconsistent with the

Government's identification of Objective requirements as identified in Exhibit B.

Can the Government please clarify?

The Government has posted J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf. The threshold requirements in Exhibit B (not marked [O]) are required to be met by the Contractor’s design. As indicated in the note included on Exhibit B, Objective requirements (marked [O]) will be considered in evaluations but they are significantly less important than cost.

Additionally, there are Environmental/Ruggedness requirements (EV.01 – EV.29) in Exhibit B that may be reasonably considered by the Contractor in balancing design with device cost. Subparagraph C4.2.4.1 on Page 3-4 of J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf adds clarifying information for this. On page 94 of the RFP, Sub-Factor 1 incorporates this prioritization into the Source Selection Factors and opens up the trade space for offerors to propose reasonable solutions. It is helpful for Offerors to make their object requirement and Environmental/Ruggedization tradeoff approaches and reasoning clear to the Government in written proposals.

Question 11:

RFP Reference: Page 83 of the RFP, Past Performance Factor 3, states "Offerors shall also provide up to three (3) past performance references for work performed as Prime or Sub-Contractor for the Government within the last five years that demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the proposed contract."

Given the nature of commercial product sales, many variable sized, but identical, transactions/contracts are executed to purchase the products. Can related transactions for the same customer, for the same products and services, be combined under one past performance citation? For example, if one customer has placed 10 orders for the same products and services on various PO's can they be combined into one citation?

Yes. This approach is acceptable if the customer and products are the same across several purchase orders.

Question 12:

RFP Reference: FP.09 of Exhibit B states "The hardware device shall digitally capture four-finger slap fingerprints in less than 2.0 seconds. The response time is from when the finger is physically placed on the platen until the image is provided to the software."

Given that FP.04 labels Four-Finger Slap Fingerprints Capture [O] as an objective requirement, will the Government change FP.09 to be an objective requirement as well or consider changing to a minimum of 4 seconds?

No, the Government will not change FP.09. However, FP.09 is only relevant if the Contractor’s design meets the objective requirement FP.04 with hardware. Exhibit B wi ll be updated to reflect this. If FP.04 is met, then the capture time requirement in FP.09 for four-finger slap devices is applicable. If FP.04 is not met (i.e. a two-finger slap is used) then FP.09, which is specifically written for four-finger slap, does not apply and the offeror should note this non-applicability in the written proposal.

Question 13:

RFP Reference: Attachment J2, DO 1-S, Sections C4.4 and C4.5 describe the purpose of the Technical Interchange

Meetings (TIMS).

Will the Government confirm that any Government requested changes to the awarded Contractor's BOM or Design will be handled in accordance with the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process?

Paragraphs C4.2 and C4.3 are Firm Fixed Price (FFP) design tasks for the Hand-held Hardware Device and the

Hardware Kit associated with it, respectively. Design changes to either, requested by the Government as a part of

TIM#1 and TIM#2 as described in Paragraphs C4.4 and C4.5 on Page 5-6 of J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf, are expected to be minor and to not constitute major design changes. Major design changes will be handled in accordance with the

ECP process. The Government will not ask the Contractor to exceed the requirements listed in Paragraphs C4.2 and

C4.3 of J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf and Exhibit B. Trade space is already discussed in the Government’s response to

Question #10. The Contractor should plan accordingly and cost should be accounted for in the Contractor’s proposal to satisfy the technical requirements of the J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf Statement of Work.

Question 14:

RFP Reference: Page 96 of the RFP, Factor 4: Evaluated Cost, para 2 states "Offeror's quotes for five (5) prototype units as described in Delivery Order 0001 and a quote for step ladder pricing for quantities of one (1) to over one thousand five hundred (1,500) production units in FFP CLIN 0002 as described in section Ddl-25 Cost and Price

Factor 4 will be evaluated."

What constitutes the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)? Is the Cost and Price score (Factor 4) based on adding together the price of 1500 units; Delivery Order 0001; and, the price for 5 prototype units, that is, adding together the 3 items?

Total Evaluated Price will be comprised of the proposed cost for Delivery Order 0001 (which includes the prototype unit cost), and the total price for an order of 350 units, based upon the proposed step ladder pricing.

Question 15:

RFP Reference: Page 83 of the RFP, cost and Price Factor 4 states "Offerors shall submit a cost proposal for

Delivery Order 0001 to include the costs associated with all tasking in the SOW for Delivery Order 0001." The fourth bullet in this section further directs the offerors to submit a quote for 5 prototype units and another quote to support the quantity step ladder pricing.

Will the Government clarify if they expect two (2) stand-alone pricings whereas one contains the total value proposed for Delivery Order 0001 including the 5 prototypes and the second pricing proposed to be the FFP step ladder pricing for production of future units?

Yes. Within Delivery Order 0001, the quote will be for five (5) prototype units shall be clearly defined.

Question 16:

RFP Reference: Page 87 of the RFP, CPFF CLIN 0001 paragraph (b) Direct Labor, the Government states "The

Cost Proposal shall reflect actual labor rates expected to be expended in performing the proposed contract; e.g.

actual hourly rates for named personnel if such rates will be the basis for billing under the resultant contract, and not a composite rate of individuals within a labor classification or labor category."

Because this direction conflicts with our standard practice and policies (it is our company's policy and practice to bid direct labor based on our Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, as submitted to DCMA), are we approved to submit our CPFF direct labor according to our rate schedule submitted with our Direct Labor Forward Pricing Rate

Proposal?

The Governement will utilize DCMA/DCAA recommended rates as well as histiorical information when conducting cost/price analysis.

Question 17:

RFP Reference: Page 87 of the RFP, CPFF CLIN 0001 paragraph (d) Escalation, the Government directs Offerors to disclose the escalation rate applied to their direct labor rates and to provide three (3) years of historical documentation supporting the escalation proposed.

Based on the understanding with DCMA (in establishing Direct Labor Forward Pricing Rates, our company has negotiated an annual escalation factor with DCMA), will the Government, in our proposal, accept our standard escalation factor and remove the requirement to provide historical data?

No, the Government will not remove the requirement for historical data. The Government utilizes historical data along with any available information from DCAA/DCMA when conducting price/cost analysis.

Question 18:

RFP Reference: FC.07 of the Exhibit B_IDS_Hardware_Specifications.xlsx states "The hardware device's visible illumination shall be Class 1 in accordance with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 825-1 and IEC

60825-1."

Will the Government accept an LED based smartphone camera flash meeting IEC 62471 eye safety certification based on the understanding that IEC 62471 replaced IEC 60825-1 for LED products (after 2010, IEC 60825-1 covers LASER products only and no longer covers LED products)?

Yes, provided that the safety risk level is equivalent to or lower than that in FC.07 as originally written.

Question 19:

RFP Reference: IR.12 of the Exhibit B_IDS_Hardware_Specifications.xlsx states "The hardware device's Near

Infrared (NIR) illumination shall be Class 1 in accordance with IEC 825-1 and IEC 60825-1."

Will the Government accept an LED based IR iris camera meeting IEC 62471 eye safety certification based on the understanding that IEC 62471 replaced IEC 60825-1 for LED products (after 2010, IEC 60825-1 covers LASER products only and no longer covers LED products)?

Yes, provided that the safety risk level is equivalent to or lower than that in IR.12 as originally written.

Question 20:

RFP Reference: In J1_DO1_SOW_Rev1.PDF, section C4.2.4 the Government states that "The Contractor's design shall meet all of the requirements listed in this section and in Exhibit B of this SOW." In

J1_DO1_SOW_Rev1.PDF section C4.2.4.1 the Government states that "At Government discretion, a hand-held hardware device design that does not or may not meet requirements EV.01-EV.29 associated with MIL-STD-810G

CHG1, MILSTD-464F, and MIL-STD-461G in Exhibit B may be accepted under this Delivery Order."

Can the Government verify that they will accept a hand-held hardware design and produce devices that meets some

Objective [O] requirements and some EV.01-EV.29 requirements?

Government acceptance and approval of actual designs for the production of prototype devices within Delivery

Order 0001 is intended as part of TIM#2 as described in Paragraph C4.5 of J1_DO1_Rev1. First Article and final baseline configuration devices will be approved for production in relevant Delivery Orders. Under this contract, the

Government may approve designs that do not meet all Environmental/Ruggedness requirements. Ideally, all

Environmental/Ruggedness requirements would be met by the proposed design as they are thresholds (not marked

[O]). Subparagraph C4.2.4.1 on Page 3-4 of J1_DO1_Rev1.pdf adds clarifying information for offeror’s to consider with regard to meeting EV.01-EV.29. For Exhibit B, Objective requirements (marked [O]), it is acceptable for offerors to include or to not include these in proposed designs. As indicated in the note included on Exhibit B, Objective requirements will be considered in evaluations but they are significantly less important than cost. Sub-

Factor 1 on page 94 of the RFP discusses the importance of these two groups of requirements in terms of the Source

Selection Factors. The cost versus the benefits of meeting or partially meeting the Environmental/Ruggedness requirements (EV.01 – EV.29) and objective (marked [O]) in Exhibit B should be considered by the offerors in their proposed designs.

Question 21:

RFP Reference: Page 94 of the RFP, Section M, Factor 1: Hand-held Hardware Device Design, the Government states that "The Government will assess the Offeror's ability to successfully design, develop, build, and deliver the hardware devices required by the Government based on these submissions. Less emphasis will be placed on the ability of the Offeror's design to meet requirements related to MIL-STD-810G CH1, MILSTD-464, and MIL-STD-

461. Less emphasis will be placed on the ability of the Offeror's design to meet requirements marked with an [O] in

Exhibit B.

Will the Government verify that Offerors submissions are not required to meet all Exhibit B requirements to be considered for evaluation?

In written proposals, all offerors are expected to provide the Government with information regarding how the proposed design will meet the Government’s requirements for the hand-held hardware device. On page 82 under

Sub-Factor 1, the RFP states that offerors shall present this information in a line-by-line listing of the requirements from the Government and a written explanation of how the Offeror will meet each requirement with the proposed design. Explanations should include but are not limited to the Contractor’s leveraging of existing commercial products and modifications to the same. It is helpful for Offerors to make their proposed requirements tradeoff determinations and reasoning clear to the Government in the written proposals. Ideally, all threshold requirements including EV.01-EV.29 would be met by the designs included in the offeror’s proposal. However, in line with

J1_DO1_SOW_Rev1.PDF and the Source Selection Criteria, the Government will consider offeror submissions with designs that may not meet requirements EV.01-EV.29, provided that tradeoffs are clearly identified.

Question 22:

RFP Reference: Page 9 of the RFP, C.4.7, Delivery Order Management Statement of Work (SOW)

Will the Government provide a CLIN type for C.4.7?

These requirements may be performed under both CPFF and FFP CLINs. The specific requirement will be identified within each Delivery Order.

Question 23:

RFP Reference: Page 8 of the RFP, C.4.2 IDS Design, Development, and Testing (Firm-Fixed-Price), states

"Contractor shall provide safety assessments of IDS hardware systems in various stages of system maturity throughout the period of this contract. (A016)"

Will the Government please define Safety Assessments and provide clarification on "throughout the period of this contract"?

The Safety Assessments are defined in CDRL A016 on Page 16 of Exhibit A_IDIQ_CDRL.PDF where Dl-SAFT-

81841 is referenced. The first Safety Assessment is a Systems Hazard Analysis (SHA) in accordance with Task 205 of MIL-STD-882E as described on Page 10 of J1_DO1_SOW_Rev1.PDF in Subparagraph C4.9.1 and on Page 14 of

J3_DO1_CDRL.PDF. The Contractor is also required by Subparagraph C4.5.3.2 on Page 6 of

J1_DO1_SOW_Rev1.PDF to discuss in detail any safety concerns associated with their design as a part of Technical

Interchange Meeting #2 (TIM#2). The Government will provide a Preliminary Hazard List (PHL) and a Preliminary

Hazard Analysis (PHA) to the Contractor during Delivery Order 0001 to inform the Contractor’s SHA. However, the Contractor is expected to be able to assess and document potential safety hazards associated with their design.

Requirements for any additional Safety Assessments will be identified in the relevant Delivery Order(s). Safety

Assessments by the Contractor are not anticipated beyond delivery of First Article hardware devices unless driven by major design changes in accordance with the ECP process.

Question 24:

RFP Reference: Page 19 of the RFP, HQ C-2-0037 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (NAVSEA)

(JUL 2000)

(Request) - As drafted, this clause-at paragraph (d)-prohibits a contractor from sharing information "with a party outside of Government," and as result would prohibit a contractor from sharing the information with its subcontractors. In addition, paragraph (e) is inconsistent with the IP rights allocation under this and other

Government contracts, in that it prohibits a contractor from selling for three years any pre-existing software that the contractor had developed at private expense (but that may not qualify as a commercial item) but utilizes in the performance of this contract.

This clause seem more appropriate for SETA-type contracts under which the Contractor creates requirements for future work (and therefore presents the risks discussed in FAR 9.505-2).

Because this is not a SETA-type contract, we respectfully request the clause be removed from the contract.

No, this clause will not be removed.

Question 25:

RFP Reference: Page 82 of the RFP, Sub-factor 3 Manufacturing Readiness, the Government states "The Offeror shall address their readiness to produce and deliver a lot size of three hundred eighty five (385) and a lot size of six hundred seventy five (675) hand-held devices."

To facilitate efficiencies in manufacturing, will the Government give a schedule for ordering and delivery of the quantities of three hundred eighty-five (385) and six hundred seventy-five (675) hand held devices?

No. The requested lot sizes under sub-factor 3 are for evaluation purposes only.

Question 26:

RFP Reference: Page 84 of the RFP, Cost and Price factor 4, the Government states "Another quote shall include step ladder pricing for quantities of one (1) to over one thousand five hundred (1500) production units as shown in the table below for FFP CLIN 0002."

To facilitate efficiencies in manufacturing, will the Government give a schedule for ordering and delivery of the quantities of (1) to over one thousand five hundred (1500) production units?

No. As this is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, specific production requirements will vary over the life of the contract.

Question 27:

Page 90 of the RFP, DdI-L-40, states that “All questions are requested in writing by 16:00 30 March 2018.” Based on the volume and complexity of the questions generated and submitted, and the criticality of answers needed to understand and respond effectively to this RFP, we have the following questions.

Will the Government extend the due date for receipt of questions to 16:00 6 April 2018?

Yes, the Government will extend the due date for questions to 16:00 13 April 2018.

Question 28:

Will the Government extend the due date for submission of proposals to 16:00 2 May 2018?

No, the due date for submissions of proposals will not be extended.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Ddl-M10

M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.1.1 This Task Order is for a full and open competition.

M.1.2 It is the intention of the Government to award one single award IDIQ with both CPFF and FFP line items for this requirement. The contract award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the

Government under the selection criteria set forth in this Section M.

M.1.3 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract upon initial proposals. Therefore, the

Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The

Government may contact any or all or a limited number of Offeror's with questions concerning their responses as permitted under FAR Part 16.5.

M.2 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Offeror's must meet or provide an acceptable plan to meet each of the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT noted in

Section C. An Offeror not meeting this requirement will not be considered eligible for Award.

M.3 BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION FACTORS

M.3.1 Each Offeror shall be evaluated relative to the following:

FACTOR/SIGNIFICANT SUB-FACTOR

Factor 1: Technical Understanding/Capability/Approach

Sub-Factor 1 Hand-held Hardware Device Design

Sub-Factor 2 Technical Proposal to Delivery Order 0001

Sub-Factor 3 Manufacturing Readiness

Sub-Factor 4 Statement of Work

Factor 2: Management Capability

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost and Price

GREATEST VALUE EVALUATION

M.3.2 Each Offeror will be evaluated relative to the following Best Value Source Selection Factors. Each separately evaluated Factor and Sub-Factor will be assigned an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable where Outstanding is the highest adjectival rating. Proposal Sub-Factor/Factor strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies will be noted. Each proposal will be given an overall adjectival rating resulting from the rolled up Factor ratings. An adjectival rating of Unacceptable in any one Factor or Sub-Factor will result in the entire proposal being deemed Unacceptable.

M.4 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

M.4.1 The following adjectival ratings/definitions, as defined in Table 1, shall be used for the Technical

Understanding/Capability/Approach and Management Capability evaluation Factor and Sub-Factors:

TABLE 1 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the Solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.4.2 PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation, as defined in the two tables below.

Relevancy

The past performance relevancy rating, as defined in Table 2, is the assessment of the Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements.

TABLE 2 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Confidence

The past performance confidence rating, as defined in Table 3, is the evaluation of the Offeror's demonstrated ability to successfully perform the contract's requirements, based on past performance information.

TABLE 3 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.4.3 DEFINITIONS

1. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

2. Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the Solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

3. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

4. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between…