Q&A_Regarding_Draft_RFP.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS REGARDING DRAFT RFP N00253-18-R-0002

(24 JAN 2018)

Q1. Various inconsistent sets of labor hours are provided. L&M sample task hours are clearly not aligned exactly to CLIN hours and are only "consistent" and "reflective" of the actual CLIN and Attachment 10 hours. They are the exact hours to be bid in the technical volume. However, the rules for the CLIN and cost volume hours are less clear. Are the

Engineering Hours associated with each appropriate CLIN of Section B and identified again in Attachment 10, Wkst 10D Column "A" to be treated as Not To Exceed values or are they to be proposed as absolute values?

A1. For proposal purposes, the hours identified in Section B and Attachment 10 Worksheet 10D

Column B (not “A” as indicated in the question) are to be treated as absolute values. For contract award purposes, these hours represent not-to-exceed values. They will be multiplied by the proposed composite rate (derived using Worksheet 10A) to establish the not-to-exceed target cost per CLIN. This clarification is added to Section L, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 2.6, Tab 1 paragraph (a).

Q2. In Table L-2, Row 13, list item e., the IMS requires identification of "resources required to accomplish the technical approach proposed for the Sample Tasks." Resource loading the MS-Project IMS is complex and redundant since the information already exists in the BOEs. Can IMS requirement e. for identifying Sample Task resources be accomplished by cross-referencing the IMS to the BOEs using the CWBS?

A2. It can be accomplished any number of ways. The Government has not directed Offerors to use MS-Project. It is up to each Offeror to determine the best method to provide the required information in a detailed and complete manner so as to clearly demonstrate its comprehensive understanding of all requirements.

Q3. Inconsistent alignment of Section L instructions and Section M Evaluation Criteria.

There are Section L requirements identified for Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1, Subfactor 2, but Section M does not contain any evaluation factors for Factor 1, Subfactor

1 nor Factor 1, Subfactor 2. Would the Government please clarify?

A3. Table L-2 identifies the proposal submission requirements for Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2

(Sample Tasks 1-3). Table M-1 identifies how the Government will evaluate proposal submittals to Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2 (Sample Tasks 1-3).

Q4. Sample Task 1 is defined as the “first three (3) months of effort." Table L-3 defines the performance year as FY20, even though contract award is defined as July 2, 2019.

Since the Sample Task schedule is supposed to align to Attachment 11 Build Schedule, will the Government allow the effort to start at contract award and for Sample Task 2 to also commence within the first three months of the contract?

A4. Tables L-3 and L-4 are corrected to reflect Contract Year 1 as FY19/20 based on the assumption of July 2019 contract award. Contract Years 2-4 are adjusted accordingly.

Performance under the contract award cannot commence until delivery/task orders are issued.

As stated in the solicitation, Section L, Sample Task 1, “Note: The Government intends to issue a task order for kickoff immediately following contract award based on this sample task.”

Q5. In Attachment 10, Wkst 10A, ST 1, 2 (LOE) - The Bottom line of row 1 presently states, "See Section L, Table L-3, Hours for Sample Task 2." It should state, "See Section

L, Table L-2, Hours for Sample Task 1 and Table L-3, Hours for Sample Task 2."

A5. Attachment 10, Worksheet 10A ST 1,2 (LOE) - The bottom line of Row 1 is corrected to read, "See Section L, Table L-3, Hours for Sample Task 1, and Table L-4, Hours for Sample

Task 2."

Q6. The scope of sample Task 2 is not clear, and there are inconsistencies between the references listed. Please clarify the content of Sample Task 2. Does it include complete new build units (with enclosures), modernizations from other TIs to TI-20, or only from TI-

14 to TI-20?

A6. Sample Task 2 is revised to provide more clarity. As a result, Tables L-2 and M-1, Items #1

& #2, have been revised. For Sample Task 2 purposes, as stated in Sample Task 2 the modernizations will be from operational TI-14 hardware baselines to TI-20 configuration.

Q7. "See SOW 3.2 Non-recurring Engineering". There is no mention of "SOW 3.4

Engineering and Technical Support Services" - which therefore excludes ILS, field engineering, CM. However, several ILS items are referenced in ST-2 Table L-2 - #4 & #5.

Does Sample Task 2 include SOW 3.4 activities? Will the Government clarify which SOW paragraphs they want included in each Sample Task?

A7. The Sample Task 2 (Engineering) has multiple facets just as the SOW has multiple engineering facets (e.g. NRE and Engineering & Technical Support Services). The SOW references provided in the Sample Tasks reflect the "primary" requirements represented. The first paragraph of Sample Task 2 is NRE focused; the second paragraph is Engineering &

Technical Support focused. As stated in the first paragraph under Factor 1 Technical (Draft RFP page 146), the Offeror shall meet all SOW requirements specific to the Sample Tasks.

Q8. Table L-2 Row 2 states, “Define the approach to be employed to address virtualization. Response shall include a description of the approach to interact with the integrated product teams and working groups. Describe an overall program plan showing how the BYG-1 TI/APB USN Build Schedule, Attachment 11, will be accomplished. The program plan description shall identify the program’s critical path and associated risks and mitigation plans.” Will the Government clarify sentences three and four to specify if they are linked to virtualization or are stand-alone requirements that address the broad program as a whole? If they are stand-alone requirements and not linked to virtualization, will the government relocate these sentences? Will the government clarify sentences three and four to specify if they are linked to virtualization or are stand-alone requirements that address the broad program as a whole? If they are stand-alone requirements and not linked to virtualization will the government relocate these sentences?

A8. Table L-2, Items 1 and 2, are revised to provide more clarity. As a result, Table M-1, Items

1 & 2, also are revised.

Q9. “Offeror shall submit its individual BOM for only the top 80% material per shipset variant using Worksheet 10C to support material costs proposed for Sample Task 3 (total of 22 worksheets).” How should the Offeror address changes in the top 80% costed BOM that may result from economic order quantity stepladders? Should additional BOMs be provided for each stepladder, or should the Offeror add columns to the BOM to reflect economic ordering differences in material cost?

A9. Offeror should add columns to the BOM (Attachment 10, Worksheet 10C), if needed, to reflect economic ordering differences in material cost.

Q10. Technical and Management Volume page limits are inadequate due to the large number of new L, M and SOW requirements compared to the 2013 RFP. The addition of eight additional L/M criteria and numerous new SOW scope items requires more than the

75 pages allocated for Technical and 35 allocated to Management. Please increase the allocation to 150 pages for Technical and 50 pages for Management.

A10. Table L-1 is revised to reflect an increase to the page limits for Volume I Factor 1

Technical; and Volume I Factor 2 Management.

Q11. BOM 100-page limit may be inadequate due to the large number of BOMs required

(22 Ship Set configurations). The requirement for 22 separate Bills of Material for the top

80% material cost drivers requires more than the 100 pages allocated. Please remove the page-count restriction on the BOM attachment.

A11. Table L-1 is revised to delete the page limit for the Bill of Materials.

Q12. Factor 2, Subfactor 1: Personnel and Organization states, "The Offeror shall provide a copy of all proposed teaming arrangements." This is extra page count in an already page-limited volume. Will the Government allow this item to be attached as an Appendix that does not count against the Management Volume’s page limit?

A12. Teaming Arrangements are required, but will not count against the Factor 2 page limit.

See revised Table L-1.

Q13. There is no mention of the IMS page count allocation in Table L-1, or the location of the IMS. Will the Government please clarify the volume in which to place the IMS and any page count restrictions?

A13. The IMS is a proposal submission requirement under Factor 1 Subfactors 1 & 2 (Sample

Tasks 1-3) per Table L-2 Item #13. As such, the IMS is part of "Volume I, Factor 1: Technical," and is included in the page limit specified in Table L-1.

Q14. Paper format states every paragraph must be numbered, implying either an unreasonable level of section headers or a post-production typesetting task to add paragraphs numbers. Please remove the requirement to number every paragraph or change the last line on page 142 to read "Every major section, figure and table shall be numbered."

A14. The requirement to number every paragraph has been removed. The sentence is changed to read, "Every major section, figure, and table shall be numbered."

Q15. Technical proposal references Attachment 11 to guide program sample task milestones, IMS, and approach to support virtualization, but the schedule milestones look like Advanced Processor Build (APB) software milestones. Please verify that the

Attachment 11 "TI-20/APB-19" schedule bar defines the program milestones for APB-19

SW development and not the TIH hardware schedule.

A15. Attachment 11, BYG-1 TI/APB USN Build Schedule, is a high-level Technology Insertion

Hardware (TIH) schedule that includes both hardware and software milestones.

Q16. Technical proposal references Attachment 11 to guide program sample task milestones, IMS, and approach to support virtualization. Attachment 11 does not define any TIH milestones in the "TI20" schedule bar. Please provide program milestones for first lab asset delivery and first production delivery for TIH TI-20.

A16. For Sample Task purposes, the following additional information is provided:

EDM Delivery: Feb/Mar 2020

Lab COTS Delivery: Mar/Apr 2020

First Shipset Hardware (Production) Delivery: Oct/Nov 2020

Additional Note: Attachment 11 is updated with the most current revision. It changed from

Rev-M dated 6 April 2017 (provided with Draft RFP) to Rev-N dated 18 July 2017.

Q17. “Combat Control and Sonar Configuration baselines are detailed in appendix B of the SOW”. There is no Appendix B provided. Please provide SOW Appendix B.

A17. Replace "Appendix B to the SOW" with "the TI-20/22 E-TIC > TIH Technical Data >

Level 1 and Level 2 Drawings"

Q18. The Draft RFP states that Combat Control and Sonar Configuration Baselines are detailed in Appendix B to the SOW, but the SOW does not include an Appendix B. (Page

145.)

A18. Replace "Appendix B to the SOW" with "the TI-20/22 E-TIC > TIH Technical Data >

Level 1 and Level 2 Drawings"

Q19. Description of CLIN is USN TI-20 Engineering Year 1. Should CLIN 1001 description read USN TI-22 Engineering Year 3?

A19. CLIN 1001 description is revised to USN TI-22 Engineering (Year 3).

Q20. Description of CLIN is USN TI-22 Non-Production Materials (Years 1 – 5). Should

CLIN 1006 description read USN TI-22 Non-Production Materials (Years 3 - 7)?

A20. CLIN 1006 description is revised to USN TI-22 Non-Production Materials (Years 3-7).

Q21. Description of CLIN is USN TI-22 Travel & Subsistence (Years 1 – 5). Should CLIN

1007 description read USN TI-22 Travel & Subsistence (Years 3 - 7)?

A21. CLIN 1007 description is revised to USN TI-22 Travel & Subsistence (Years 3 - 7).

Q22. Description of CLIN is USN TI-22 Production, Surge & Spares (Years 1 – 5). Should

CLIN 1008 description read USN TI-22 Production, Surge & Spares (Years 3 - 7)?

A22. CLIN 1008 description is revised to USN TI-22 Production, Surge & Spares (Years 3 - 7).

Q23. Description of CLIN is FMS TI-20 Engineering Year 1. Should CLIN 1009 description read FMS TI-22 Engineering Year 3?

A23. CLIN 1009 description is revised to FMS TI-22 Engineering (Year 3).

Q24. Various CLINs in Section B of the Draft RFP appear to be incorrect and inconsistent with the POPs in Section F (for example, CLIN 1001 states TI20 versus TI22 and Year 1 versus Year 3).

A24. Answers A19 through A23 resolve these discrepancies.

Q25. RAN TI-22 Travel & Subsistence states Maximum amount of this CLIN shall not exceed $14,965,479. Based on the NTE amounts for other CLINS, it appears this value may be overstated. Please verify the NTE.

A25. The NTE amount is revised for the following CLINs: 0006, 0008, 0014, 0016, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1022, 1023, and 1024.

(End of Q&A document)