N0025319R0001_Amendment_0003.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 respond to vendor questions 42-43, update the CLIN descriptions for CLINs 0002 and 0003, update the highlighted fields for CLINs 0002 and 0003, and update Table M-1.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Oct-2019

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 N0025319R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Sep-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Oct-2019

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

ATTN: RILEY JOHNSON

RILEY.JOHNSON@NAVY.MIL

610 DOWELL STREET, BLDG 206

KEYPORT WA 98345

N00253 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0025319R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Production Representative Articles built in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents.

To:

Production Representative Articles built in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents. Per unit pricing to be identified in Attachment 9 Cost Summary Workbook - ELIN Table.

CLIN 0003

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

First Article Units manufactured in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents.

To:

First Article Units manufactured in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents. Per unit pricing to be identified in Attachment 9 Cost Summary Workbook - ELIN Table.

The following have been added by full text:

UPDATED CLINS 0002 AND 0003

CLINs 0002 and 0003 as updated in Amendment 0003:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0002 4 Each Production Representative Articles

CPFF

Production Representative Articles built in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents.

Per unit pricing to be identified in Attachment 9 Cost Summary Workbook - ELIN Table.

NOTE: The requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, are applicable for this line item. The contractor shall provide DoD unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: 5865

MAX COST $

FIXED FEE $

TOTAL MAX COST + FEE

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0003 2 Each First Article

CPFF

First Article Units manufactured in accordance with the SOW and all associated documents.

Per unit pricing to be identified in Attachment 9 Cost Summary Workbook - ELIN Table.

NOTE: The requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, are applicable for this line item. The contractor shall provide DoD unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent.

FOB: Origin (Shipping Point)

PSC CD: 5865

MAX COST $

FIXED FEE $

TOTAL MAX COST + FEE

The following have been modified:

VENDOR QUESTIONS

Question 1:

Please Provide Digital Data File A (Appendix A - TBD, file provided upon request) as called out in the ANSLQE_DetailSpec_U4-5TowedBody

Answer 1:

Digital Data File A was provided as Attachment 31a Towed Body Nose Cone and Tail Cone STEP File - draft.

Question 2:

Please Provide Acoustic Dummy Load (Appendix B - TBD, file provided upon request) as called out in the ANSLQE_DetailSpec_U4-5TowedBody.

Answer 2:

Draft characteristics will be identified and uploaded to ETIC. At award, the Item Spec will be updated to incorporate any changes to the characteristics.

Question 3:

Please provide:

Zone A - Classified Appendix E (unique - U4-5PCR22).

Zone B - Classified Appendix E (unique - U4-5PCR23).

Zone C - Classified Appendix E (unique - U4-5PCR24).

Appendix C

Answer 3:

Classified items are not required for proposal purposes and will be delivered following award.

Question 4:

Please Provide OPNAVINST 5513.3C, SCG ID# 03-171 "AN/SLQ-25, AN/SLQ-25A, AN/SLQ-25C and AN/SLQ- 25 () Torpedo Countermeasures (NIXIE)" and OPNAVINST 5513.3C, SCG ID# 03-142 and "AN/SLQ-25 and AN/SLQ-25A and AN/SLQ-25C and AN/SLQ-25 () Torpedo Countermeasures (NIXIE)" - Supplement (SECRET).

(CLR07 - U4-5CLR02)"

Answer 4:

OPNAVINST 5513.3C, SCG ID# 03-171 was provided as Attachment 18 Security Classification Guide (SCG) ID# 03-171.

Classified items are not required for proposal purposes and will be delivered following award.

Question 5:

Please provide the Attachments 32, and 43 Towed Body (TB-14C) Technical materials and System Technical Data Packages

Answer 5:

Attachment 32 Tow Cable, Modified Unit 3D model will not be included at time of solicitation release; it is the Government's intention to provide document following award. Attachment 43 Towed Body was provided. The Towed Body nomenclature has not yet been determined and is not TB-14C.

Question 6:

Please provide the balance of the TDP for the Towed Body Units 4&5

Answer 6:

25E towed Body TDP is complete as delivered.

Question 7:

Attach 18 - SCG: Section 8 identifies the classified hardware for each variant of the SLQ-25. However, there is no listing for the 25E variant. What specific hardware (components, subassemblies, or assemblies) in the 25E variant is to be considered classified during production or factory testing?

Answer 7:

The only classified hardware is the Towed Body, which is Confidential.

Question 8:

SOW Paragraph 3.4.4 instructs the Contractor to perform first article testing. The CATP (Attach 17, para. 4.3 on page 8) indicates that First Article Testing will be evaluated against the unit level Item Specifications. These unit level Item Specifications each include an RVTM with a "First Article" test column in it. The required testing is extensive, including water immersion, shock, vibration, EMI, etc., and appears to be a full qualification test suite.

(Q1) What level of testing has the government already performed, or will have performed, on the design? (Q2) Is it the government's intention for the Contractor to perform all of the first article testing identified in these unit level Item Specifications, which would essentially include performing system qualification testing? (Q3) A number of the requirements in the RVTM are satisfied by Analysis. Was this already performed with the design or is it the Government's intent for the contractor to perform these analyses as part of the First Article Acceptance Test activities?

Answer 8:

A1) The Government is performing incremental functional and performance testing as HWCI and DQUs are built and tested.

A2) Contractor Qualification tests shall be completed at the Unit Level. The Contractor may determine if it is advantageous to test with a Unit standalone, or test with two or more interconnected Units. All units are to be tested.

A3) The Contractor should assume all analysis will be performed by the Government. It is expected that the results of the Government analysis will be available at time of award.

Question 9:

SOW Section 3.4.2 instructs the contractor to provide updated TDPs as CDRL A00F, per DI-SESS-80776A, but does not specify whether a level 1, level 2, or level 3 TDP is required. What is the Navy's requirement for this data package?

Answer 9:

SOW Section 3.4 pertains to First Article Units. 3.4.2 pertains to First Article and Factory Acceptance Test Equipment.

The Contractor shall update the existing PRA Test Equipment TDP to reflect approved changes for the First Article and Factory Acceptance Test Equipment. The requirement is Level 2 with complete 3D models in native format, software, and related documents.

Question 10:

Attach 1 - SOW: An updated TDP IAW CDRL A00F, DI-SESS-80776A, is to be provided, however, the level of detail (i.e. Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3) is not specified. (Q1) What Level of detail is required? (Q2) Is it correct to assume that the work requested in this paragraph is simply processing ECOs and ECPs against the data package, and that the level of detail provided in CDRL A00F will be unchanged as a result of this activity? (Q3) If the answer to Q2 is negative, what assumptions should be made by the Offeror?

Answer 10:

A1) Level 3 A2) Yes A3) N/A

Question 11:

The SOW states the Government will provide two (2) tow cables per Forward Fit Configuration and two (2) tow cables per Backfit System Configuration as GFE for the Contractor to modify to comply with the AN/SLQ-25E TDP (Section J Attach 44). Attachment 38 AN/SLQ-25E Configurations shows GFE tow cables for the Backfit configuration, but does not identify the Tow Cables for the Forward Fit configuration as being provided as GFE.

Please clarify this apparent inconsistency.

Answer 11:

Forward Fit Towed Cables will be Modified LFOTCs (LFOTCs for modification will be provided as GFE).

Attachment 38 AN/SLQ-25E NIXIE Configurations will be updated to reflect Modified LFOTCs for Forward Fit Configurations and will be provided at time of award.

Question 12:

The SOW states the Contractor will modify the GFE cables to comply with the AN/SLQ-25E TDP. Is it correct to assume all that is required is to re-terminate the cables that are provided? If not, what additional modifications are required as there are no drawings that have been provided for the LFOTC?

Answer 12:

All that is required for modification of the Unit 4 and 5 GFE cables is re-termination of the cables as defined in the TDP. Termination procedures and drawing for molds will be provided in the updated TDP, soon after award.

Question 13:

The SOW requires the Contractor to procure material for, fabricate, and assemble one (1) Miscellaneous Parts Kit IAW Attachment 38. However, there is nothing in Attachment 38 specifically identified as a Miscellaneous Parts Kit. Please provide clarification on what constitutes the makeup of this kit?

Answer 13:

The second paragraph of Para 3.4 of the SOW will be updated to read: "The Contractor shall procure material for, fabricate, assemble (i) One (1) AN/SLQ-25E Forward Fit Configuration and (ii) One (1) AN/SLQ-25E Back Fit Configuration IAW AN/SLQ-25E First Article Configurations (Section J Attachment 38), the AN/SLQ-25E TDPs (Section J, Attachments 39 - 44), and SAE AS6500." The updated SOW, Attachment 1, will be posted to ETIC.

Question 14:

Attach 38 - NIXIE Configurations: There do not appear to be drawings or parts lists associated with the Winch Kit, System Cable Kit, the Backfit Foundation Kit, or the Forward Fit Foundation Kit. Please provide the applicable drawings or parts lists.

Answer 14:

Clarification 1: The backfit kit is essentially a full Forward Fit Kit with the following two items removed:

- All DHE Units

- UNIT 3 - WINCH, DUAL DRUM (470-8691392) less the BASE ASSEMBLY RL-272C (8775623) sub-assembly.

Clarification 2: The System Cable Kit is identical for the Backfit Kit and the Forward Fit Kit. The System Cable Kit is inclusive of:

- INTERCONNECT DIAGRAM, SYSTEM (8822488)

- CABLE SHEETS, SHIPBOARD (8822489).

Clarification 3: The Backfit Foundation Kit is a Unit2 Electronic Console Foundation Adapter. (Added to the TDP;

provided after award)

Clarification 4: The Forward Fit Foundation Kit includes the following:

- One (1) Unit 3 Winch Foundation Drawing (8775633)

- One (1) Unit 2 Electronic Console Foundation drawing (Added to the TDP; provided after award)

- One (1) Unit 2 Electronic Console Foundation Adapter (Added to the TDP provided after award)

- One (1) Unit 1 RCU Foundation. The Unit1 Foundation is NOT Applicable (N/A). The Unit1’s foundation is built into the enclosure (Drawing 470-8691390, COMMON CONTROL, REMOTE). Fasteners are identified which interface with the ship.

- Clarification 4 Note 1: DHE Units do not require foundations. They are provided by the installing activity as indicated in the TDP.

- Clarification 4 Note 2: Applicable Unit Item Specifications provide foundation and foundation adapter requirements.

Question 15:

RFP: CLIN 0003 (First Article Units) is reflected with a POP corresponding to the first year (12/18/20 to 12/17/21).

Based on the SOW and the need for proof of manufacturing efforts prior to PRR and first article build, it would seem that this POP should coincide with the second year (12/18/21 to 12/17/22). Please confirm.

Answer 15:

The intent of the Government is to purchase individual 25E units defined by configurations (First Article, Forward Fit, etc.). The Government is not procuring the 25E entire system. If a Unit is mature and available to initiate First Article efforts during the base year, the Government plans to have the option of doing so during the base year. It is expected that the bulk of First Article efforts will take place during the second year of the contract.

Question 16:

Attach 2 - Estimated Production Quantities: Reflects CLIN 0004 production in years 2-5 of the POP. RFP Section F (page 51) indicates a five year POP beginning on initial contract award. Is the Government able to place orders for production in the first year and before First Article approval or should a different POP be reflected for CLIN 0004?

Answer 16:

No changes to published PoPs. PoPs will be updated at time of award. There are no estimated quantities for production items for the first year and the Government does not currently intend to place production orders prior to First Article approval, however, the Government reserves the right to place orders against CLINs anytime during the PoP.

Question 17:

In Section F of the RFP, the CLIN POPs reflect starts beginning on 12/18/20. F-211-H021, on the other hand, identifies an estimated date of award of 30 June 2020. What is the significance of this gap? Should the POPs in the table in Section F have been better represented as Months After Receipt of Order (MARO)?

Answer 17:

The estimated award date indicated in F-211-H021 is based upon award without discussions. PoPs will be updated at time of award.

Question 18:

RFP: How does the Government intend to determine how much of the term level CLINs (e.g. CLINs 0001, 0006, 0041, etc.) are required to be authorized and funded to support authorized project activities? What are the implications for authorized project activities (i.e. CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0044 or 0045) in the event funding under the term level CLINs becomes delayed or is insufficient to support these production activities?

Answer 18:

If required, the Government will request a ROM to determine the annual estimate of effort corresponding to the CLIN. All funding limitations shall be handled in accordance with the Limitation of Funds clause FAR 52.232-22.

Question 19:

The Notional Schedule provided on p.116 of the RFP reflects an award of approximately June 2020 (Q3 FY20) with an IBR to be conducted in Q1 FY21. PRA and POM activities are shown as starting upon completion of the IBR.

What activities would be completed between Award and the IBR which would be the subject of an IBR?

Answer 19:

The Notional Schedule is a hypothetical schedule in which the Contractor is expected to be standing up all processes, resources, and facilitates required to execute the contract. It is envisioned that engineering and production TIMs may start prior to an IBR and in support of clarifying contract requirements. Offerors should utilize the SOW and schedule to determine the required efforts to execute the hypothetical tasks.

Question 20:

Section 3.2 of the SOW is identified as applicable to both PRA CLIN 0002 and ETS CLIN 0006 (and options if exercised). It is not clear, however, for bidding purposes, which portions of Section 3.2 map to CLIN 0002 and which to CLIN 0006. Please clarify for prospective bidders.

Answer 20:

CLIN 0002 maps to the manufacture of Production Representative Articles.

CLIN 0006 maps to Engineering and Technical Services required as a result of Government and POM testing.

Question 21:

SOW Section 3.9 does not include a CLIN designation. This would appear to be applicable to the overall Program Management of the contract (CLIN 0001 and options). Please confirm or correct.

Answer 21:

Section 3.9 of the SOW is updated to reflect its application to CLIN 0001 and options. The updated SOW will be uploaded to ETIC.

Question 22:

Sections 3.6.4 and 3.8.6 of the SOW appear to be redundantly applied to multiple CLINs to include both production (0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0044 and 0045) and ETS services CLINs (0006, 1046 and options). Please clarify where these costs should be applied.

Answer 22:

Paragraph 3.6.4 of the SOW is for Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation of POM/FAT/production equipment and applies to CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0044, and 0045. Paragraph 3.8 is for PHS&T support as required for 0006 and 0046 (i.e. shipping for test events).

Question 23:

Sections 3.1.9.4 and 3.7.7 of the RFP address GFP management requirements and are allocated to multiple term type CLINs (0001, 0006, 1046 and options). Please clarify?

Answer 23:

Section 3.7.7 GFP Management of the SOW is redundant and will be deleted.

Question 24:

Attach 1 - SOW: Will NUWC's acoustics, environmental and power test facilities be made available to the Contractor for first article testing? If yes, will they be made available at no cost to the Contractor?

Answer 24:

A1) Yes A2) No. Costs of Government facilities, as applicable, must be included in the Offeror's proposal.

Question 25:

Given that the RFP specifies the total LOE to be proposed for the term level CLINs, is it a correct assumption that Offerors need only provide rationale for the skill mix proposed in their cost narrative addressing the proposed effort?

Answer 25:

Rationale for proposed LOE CLIN skill mixes (Program Management and Engineering/Technical Services) are not a submittal requirement. For Program Management CLINs, no higher level skill mix is provided by the Government;

for Engineering and Technical Services CLINs, Offerors must propose a skill mix that aligns with the Government provided higher level skill mix.

Question 26:

It is not clear on how the Government intends to implement the ordering process. Please describe the post-award procurement process. Will task orders for specific production quantities require individual proposals and/or how does the Government intend to use the pricing provided in Attachments 2 and 9? If individual proposals are required for each task order, will those proposals be funded from LOE CLINs? Please provide an example award scenario for clarification.

Answer 26:

Task orders will be issued for items based upon costs proposed in the Attachment 9 ELIN tables. Proposals will not be requested for individual task orders for production items.

Question 27:

Why are the quantities different between the Estimated Production Quantities (Attachment 2) and the Evaluated Quantities (Attachment 9)?

Answer 27:

Evaluated production quantities are necessary for the Government's cost evaluation and are provided to describe the Government's cost evaluation methodology.

Question 28:

FAR 52.209-3 is prescribed for inclusion in contracts when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and it is intended that the contract require first article approval and the contractor be required to conduct such testing. A clause substantially similar to FAR 52.209-3 is prescribed for contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. One would expect there to be a difference in paragraph (c) of the clause for a cost-reimbursement contract to state that the Contractor shall perform any additional testing due to disapproval at no increase in the fee of the contract vice stating that all costs for the additional testing following disapproval are to be borne by the Contractor. Given that a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated herein, request the Government revisit and restate this clause as applicable.

Answer 28:

There is no change to clause 52.209-3. Any cost overruns will be handled in accordance with the Limitation of Cost clause FAR 52.232-20.

Question 29:

There is some confusion with the differences in quantities identified in Attachments 2 and 9. In addition, Note 3 for Attachment 9 appears to indicate that unit pricing should be based upon a quantity of 1 regardless of the Evaluated Quantity. Accordingly, please confirm at what quantities the Offerors should base the individual items required to be populated in Attachment 9.

Answer 29:

Offerors must enter proposed costs for a quantity of one (1) for each ELIN item in Attachment 9. Estimated production quantities are provided by the Government in Attachment 9 to aid Offerors in developing proposed costs based upon assumption of risk. Actual ordering quantities may vary.

Question 30:

With regard to FAR 52.203-9, on what basis will the Government use to determine failure between the system design and the manufacture of the system?

Answer 30:

The question refers to FAR 52.203-9, but is assumed to mean 52.209-3. In case of a failure during acceptance, the Government will inspect the hardware item for conformity to the TDP as well as review of:

- Prior DVT or regression testing results;

- ISO 9000 QA compliance to verify consistency in manufacturing;

- Manufacturing documentation,

- Test support software Using this information, the Government will determine if the failure is a unit design deficiency or manufacturing deficiency.

Question 31:

States that the "Contractor shall update and maintain the Logistics Product Data Summaries so it reflects the current revision of the AN/SLQ-25E units." Please provide copies of the existing products for review by the Offerors.

Answer 31:

These products are not required for proposal purposes. They are currently being developed and will be made available following contract award.

Question 32:

SOW 3.6 identifies CLINs 0004, 0005, 0044 and 0045 as "options". The RFP does not. Please clarify.

Answer 32:

SOW paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 corrected to remove 'option' from CLINs 0004, 0005, 0044 and 0045.

Question 33:

- Attachment 2 identifies estimated production order quantities by year which reflect orders through Year 5.

- Note 2 (pg. 51) in Section F of the RFP indicates the expected lead time for production is 18 months.

- The Option to Extend the Term of the Contract clause (FAR 52.217-9) states in para (c) [pg. 98] the total duration of the contract shall not exceed 5 years.

- Given an anticipated 18 month production cycle, this suggests that all production orders must be placed by approximately month 42 (Year 3.5) at the latest to remain within the 5 year term of the contract.

- If orders are able to be placed through year 5, as reflected in Attachment 2, what provision is made for Program Management and Engineering Technical Services support to that production after the 5 year term of the contract expires?

Answer 33:

It is not anticipated that production items will be ordered in the latter portion of the last year. If determined otherwise, it will be addressed at that time.

Question 34:

Will the Government accept the submission of an Offeror's approved comprehensive subcontracting plan pursuant to the Test Program of 15 U.S.C. 637 in fulfillment of this requirement? If "yes' suggest the RFP be amended to also reference DFARS 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program).

Answer 34:

The Government will accept the submission of an Offeror's approved comprehensive subcontracting plan. The RFP will be amended to include DFARS 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program).

Question 35:

Page 112 of the RFP clearly states that the CWBS is excluded from the Volume I page limit. Please confirm that the WBS Dictionary required on page 118 is also excluded from the Volume I page limit.

Answer 35:

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) dictionary is excluded from the limit.

Question 36:

“BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AP8691393. ALL REQUIRED

FIXTURES, TOOLING, AND MOLDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE BUILD WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN AP8691393.” Please provide Document AP9691393

Answer 36:

AP8691393 is not required for the preparation of proposals and will be provided with the final Technical Data Package (TDP) following award.

Question 37:

Page 112 of the RFP clearly states that the IMS is excluded from the Volume I page limit. Please confirm that the entirety of Factor 1, Element 1, Sub-task 1: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) required on page 116, including items

(a) and (b), is excluded from the Volume I page limit.

Answer 37:

Factor 1, Element 1, Sub-task 1: Item (a) is excluded from the Volume I page limit. Item (b) should be part of the page limitation. Table L-1 is updated.

Question 38:

Page 112 of the RFP clearly states that the ILS Plan is excluded from the Volume I page limit. Please confirm that the entirety of Factor 1, Element 3, Sub-task 1: Product Integrated Logistics Support required on page 117 is excluded from the Volume I page limit.

Answer 38:

The ILS schedule portion of the ILS plan is not included in the page count and should be included as part of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Table L-1 is updated.

Question 39:

The dates provided is section F delivery information that shows the CLIN 0003 (FA Units) being delivered before the CLIN 0002 (PRA Units). Please provide dates in Section F P that the first article is due after the PRA. Note these dates also conflict with the Notional Schedule in section L page 116.

Answer 39:

The PoP in Section F for First Article CLIN 0003 is extended to reflect a two year ordering period. Attachments 2 and 9 are updated accordingly. Note that FA testing may extend into contract year 3. Also, as noted in Section L 2.2(e) of the RFP, the notional schedule is intended for assistance in the preparation of hypothetical technical tasks.

Question 40:

RFP Clause B-232-H003 Payments of Fee(s) (Completion) (NAVSEA) (Oct 2018): Is the 85% identified in the following sentence correct? Such payments shall be equal to eighty-five percent (85%) of the allowable cost of each invoice submitted by and payable to the Contractor pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled "Allowable Cost And Payment" (FAR 52.216-7), subject to the withholding terms and conditions of the "Fixed Fee" or "Incentive Fee" clause, as applicable (percentage of fee payable is based on fee dollars divided by estimated cost dollars including facilities capital cost of money).

Answer 40:

The 85% indicated in the clause is correct.

Question 41:

Please confirm that ODC is for travel and sustenance only

Answer 41:

ODCs are for travel/sustenance only.

Question 42:

The cost summary workbook (instructions to offerors) requires offerors to fill in a total UNIT cost for each item listed. The solicitation (TAB 2: COST/PRICE NARRATIVE AND SUPPORTING COST DATA) requires data to support material costs to the lowest replaceable UNIT level and to provide OQE to support all costs proposed in the cost summary workbook. Many of the UNITS have multiple PARTS. Is it the government's intention for offeror's to provide one cost per UNIT or show costs for each PART that comprise a UNIT?

Answer 42:

Offerors should provide one cost per UNIT per the instructions provided in the ELIN Tables tab of the Cost Summary Workbook (Attachment 9). Supporting data should reflect any and all costs associated with each unit, including parts that comprise that unit. Costs for parts that comprise each unit should be provided in the ELIN Items tab of the Cost Summary Workbook as well as within Tab 2: Cost/Price Narrative and Supporting Cost Data.

Question 43:

As Office 2010 is approaching end of life, and all support for Office 2010 will end within the award period, and potentially within the evaluation period for this RFP, and different versions of Microsoft Project in particular may have compatibility issues and very different capabilities, we would like to verify that Office 2010 is the required version for submission.

Answer 43:

Office 2010 or newer will be accepted for submission.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 GENERAL

(a) The proposed contract will be for the AN/SLQ-25E NIXIE system in accordance with the requirements contained in this solicitation.

(b) In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, the Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Factors shall include all of those evaluation factors that are described in this Section. Offerors are advised that the Government may make award to other than the Offeror with the lowest Government Total Evaluated Cost/Price (GTEC/P). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Offerors are hereby notified that if unexplained discrepancies are found in the proposal the Offeror may be ineligible for award.

(c) It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide clear indications of how its proposal meets the requirements of the SOW. If the proposal is not clear, it may be an indication that the Offeror does not understand the requirements.

(d) Each Offeror may submit only one proposal; if the Government receives more than one proposal from an Offeror, it may reject all proposals from the Offeror.

(e) Offerors are advised that proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor that is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

(a) Proposals will be evaluated in terms of Technical (Factor 1); Management (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 3), Small Business Participation (Factor 4), and Cost/Price (Factor 5).

(b) Factors 1 through 4 are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 4 being the least important. When Factors 1 through 4 are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 5 (Cost/Price). There are no subfactors within Factors 1 through 4. Elements within each Factor are taken in totality to arrive at an adjectival rating. Elements will not receive their own adjectival ratings.

(c) Factor 5 - Cost/Price is important; however, it is not the most important evaluation factor. Proposals will be evaluated and award will be based upon the best value to the Government. In making this determination, the Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between Factors 1 through 5. The closer the Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation evaluation ratings of the Offerors are to one another, the greater the importance of cost in making the award determination.

3.0 EVALUATION

3.1 EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors that will be used in evaluating and determining the proposal that represents the best value to the Government are:

Factor 1: Technical Element 1: Production Representative Article (PRA) Development Approach and Technical Data

Package (TDP) Verification (Hypothetical Tasks 1 and 2) Element 2: Manufacturing Approach and Capability Element 3: Engineering and Logistics Approach and Capability (Hypothetical Task 3) Element 4: Test Equipment Design and Testing Approach/Quality Control

Factor 2: Management

Element 1: Program Management Approach Element 2: Approach to Subcontracting Element 3: Personnel

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

Factor 5: Cost/Price

3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 1: PRODUCTION REPRESENTATIVE ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND

TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE (TDP) VERIFICATION

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 1, SUB-TASK 1: INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IMS for compliance with all requirements through the delivery of PRA 4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the tasking and efforts, schedule risks, Quality Assurance (QA) efforts, and critical path required to meet the Government’s schedule.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written description of how the proposed IMS meets Government’s schedule requirements, to include proposed mitigation plans for identified risks, for realism.

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 1, SUB-TASK 2: HYPOTHETICAL TASK 1

(a) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror understands the tools and processes described in SOW section 3.2 (Proof of Manufacturing), to include Contractor-led Working Groups, as well as its role in the change management process for non-engineering required TDP changes.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed schedule for how it meets the Government’s schedule requirements, as well as for the Offeror’s understanding of the deliverables that would be impacted.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of how to staff the hypothetical task.

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 1, SUB-TASK 3: HYPOTHETICAL TASK 2

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design analysis process for thoroughness and feasibility.

(b) The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the Offeror’s Environmental Qualification Test (EQT) risk reduction efforts, as well as the degree to which the Offeror understands the change management process for engineering required changes.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach, to include personnel, modeling capabilities, and design capabilities for realism.

(d) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of interfacing/communication with the Government during the Proof of Manufacturing effort.

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 2: MANUFACTURING APPROACH AND CAPABILITY (SOW SECTIONS 3.2, 3.3,

3.4 AND 3.5)

(a) The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness, feasibility, effectiveness, and compliance of the Offeror’s approach to manufacture, test, and deliver AN/SLQ-25E PRAs, First Article Units (FAUs) and Production equipment to verify its ability to meet the requirements identified in SOW Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with SAE AS6500.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of processes for developing, handling, storing controlling, and managing classified information for hardware, software, firmware, and other classified data.

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 3: ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICS APPROACH AND CAPABILITY

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 3, SUB-TASK 1: PRODUCT INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPPORT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Production Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) plan for completeness and feasibility. The Government will evaluate the ILS Plan for the degree to which the plan satisfactorily addresses the following:

i. ILS program implementation

ii. AN/SLQ-25E Configuration Management approach

iii. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) (SOW section 3.6.3) approach

iv. Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action (FRACA) System (SOW Section 3.6.2) approach

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 3, SUB-TASK 2: HYPOTHETICAL TASK 3:

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the DMSMS process.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the information and process required to develop and deliver a Class I ECP.

(c) The Government will evaluate for completeness the Offeror’s list of ILS documents impacted and the CDRLs required to ensure a Class I ECP would be delivered to the Government.

FACTOR 1, ELEMENT 4: TEST EQUIPMENT AND TESTING APPROACH/QUALITY CONTROL

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness, feasibility, effectiveness, and compliance of the Offeror’s entire proposed test program, including:

(a) The Offeror’s test approach, to include requirements verification/traceability and the schedule as depicted in the IMS required by Element 1.

(b) The Offeror’s description and/or process flow diagrams identifying test and inspection points for each AN/SLQ- 25E functional unit, to include the degree to which the Offeror’s use of continuous improvement methods could be used to reduce manufacturing defects while maintaining production.

(c) The Offeror’s test failures resolution approach.

(d) The Offeror’s description of the design and development strategy, certification, usage, maintenance and any associated requirements of Factory Test Equipment including test software.

(e) The Offeror’s description of the design and development strategy, certification, usage, and any associated requirements with proposed facilities which can be either contractor or government furnished facilities.

(f) The Offeror’s approach for testing and/or inspecting any items that are subcontracted.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT

FACTOR 2, ELEMENT 1: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management approach for sufficient detail to meet the following program requirements.

i. The Offeror’s organization chart showing the proposed project organization, key personnel positions and their functions.

ii. A description of how the Offeror will interface and communicate with the Government through all tasks and contract efforts.

iii. A description of the program manager's authority and responsibility.

iv. A detailed Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) across the task elements specified in the

SOW.

v. A description of the methodology employed to develop plans, budgets, schedules, and work authorization packages.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Dictionary for completeness.

(c) The Government will assess the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to optimizing affordability and total ownership cost, including procedures, methods, and controls.

FACTOR 2, ELEMENT 2: APPROACH TO SUBCONTRACTING

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the Offeror’s approach to subcontracting to include:

(a) Evaluation of the Offeror’s contract team and division of tasks and deliverables for feasibility of accomplishment.

(b) Assessing the technical and performance strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to ensure benefits outweigh the risks associated with the selection of the proposed contract team.

(c) Evaluation of the Offeror’s management structure for coordinating and controlling the contract team with particular attention to:

i. Payment tracking and reporting processes

ii. Approach to contract team performance issues

iii. Approach to communicating and resolving conflicts within the contract team

FACTOR 2, ELEMENT 3: KEY PERSONNEL

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel Resumes to determine their ability to successfully perform functions relevant to their proposed positions.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel as individuals and as a part of the team.

Key Personnel will be evaluated for the extent of their qualifications and experience, as depicted in the resumes.

The evaluation of the Key Personnel will include an evaluation of the Key Personnel availability.

(c) The qualifications listed in each individual proposed Key Personnel resume, not the specific individual, are the materially relevant aspects of the proposed Key Personnel partially forming the basis of award under 5252.237- 9106, SUBSTITUTION OF PERSONNEL (SEP 1990). Therefore, even if a proposed Key individual becomes unavailable to the offeror between proposal submission and award, the Government will evaluate and make its award decision based on the qualifications listed on the proposed resume(s). When the Government awards a contract under those circumstances, the Government will require the awardee to use the qualifications listed on the relevant proposed Key Personnel resume as the basis for replacing that individual under 5252.237-9106(b) during contract performance

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be evaluated as follows:

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, including major subcontractors, past performance over the past three (3) years for relevance, which is considered to be whether the past performance cited is similar to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this effort. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to relate past performance to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement. Past performance, either positive or negative, which the Government considers to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

Offerors are advised that the Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State and local Government agencies, better business bureaus, published media and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Federal Subcontracting Reporting System (FSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably on the past performance factor (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” The Contracting Officer may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

(b) In evaluating the Past Performance, the Government will consider:

i. Quality of Product or Service. The degree to which the Offeror provided high quality products or services.

ii. Delivery/Completion Schedule. The extent to which the Offeror satisfied customer requirements for contract completion in accordance with agreed upon schedule.

iii. Cost Control. The extent to which the Offeror provided contract products or services at or below its initially proposed costs while maintaining customer desired level of quality and delivery, and limiting direct and indirect cost growth.

iv. Small Business Utilization. Large and Small Businesses will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with, or exceeding of, FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Other than Small Businesses will also be evaluated on extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with, or exceeding of, FAR 52.219-9 Alt II, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts).

FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

NOTE: All Offerors, including Small Businesses, will be evaluated on this factor.

The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document, Section J, Attachment 7, will be evaluated for quality of detail and the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing participation for small business and small business subcategories.

Offeror’s narrative will be evaluated on the degree to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of Small Business requirements and its planned approach to meet its stated goal. Evaluation of small business participation also applies to Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan participants. Evaluation of the SBPCD will include, at a minimum: the extent to which small businesses are specifically identified in the proposal; the extent of the commitment to use such firms (e.g. enforceable commitments are weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); the appropriateness of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; and the extent of participation of small businesses in terms of the value of the total acquisition, and the realism of the proposal.

In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B), the evaluation of the SBPCD is separate from the assessment of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted pursuant to clause FAR 52.219-9 Alt II and L-219-H001. However, the SBPCD should complement the offeror’s Subcontracting Plan if a plan is required.

Note: The past performance of the offeror in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, will be evaluated under Factor 3 - Past Performance.

FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE

(a) General. The Government shall evaluate the information presented in the cost proposal to determine (i) the extent to which the Offeror understands the Government’s requirements and (ii) a Government estimate of the likely costs of performance should the Offeror receive the award. The Government will consider both cost reasonableness and cost realism of the Offeror’s proposal. The quality of the evaluation may be affected by the quality of the Offeror’s submission and supporting cost data. Poor or inadequate supporting cost data may negatively impact the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror. If the proposed costs are considered to be unrealistic, they will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs. For the purposes of cost realism analysis, no downward adjustments will be made to an Offeror's proposed cost or price. Offerors are cautioned that, to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic, the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the Offeror’s part. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the Offeror.

The Government may limit the breadth of the cost realism analyses to those Offeror proposals that represent the most likely candidates for award based on information derived from the technical evaluation and relative cost comparison. If an Offeror has a lower technical rating than competing Offerors and a higher proposed cost, the Government may elect to not perform a cost realism analysis on said Offeror's proposed cost as the cost realism analysis will only result in upward adjustments to the proposed cost thereby further removing the Offeror's proposal from the most likely candidates for award.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s cost proposal will be based on compliance with the solicitation and SOW, a cost realism analysis, completeness of the cost data, traceability of the Offeror’s proposed costs, and proposed labor mix.

Pertinent cost information including, but not limited to, DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be considered in arriving at the Government determination of the most probable estimated cost to be incurred in the performance of the contract. Anomalies and inconsistencies in costing/pricing will be considered a risk and taken into consideration in the evaluation.

Offerors are advised that a proposal that includes unbalanced pricing between the basic requirement and any options may be rejected. As defined in FAR 15.404, unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(b) Cost Worksheets: Using the Offeror’s proposed costs in Attachment 9, Cost Summary Workbook, the Government will perform a detailed review and evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed costs.