Solicitation_Amendment_1.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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION 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 include changes based on industry questions. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 39

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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 N6133118R0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Aug-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 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

13-Sep-2018

CODE

NSWC PANAMA CITY (V. TOMASI)

VINCENT.TOMASI

850-234-4396

110 VERNON AVE.

PANAMA CITY FL 32407-7001

N61331 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

N6133118R0010 Solicitation Industry Questions

RFP Reference

Industry Question

Government Response

Section L

Table 2.2.1- Page Limitations. Factor 3- Past Performance

Due to the 30 pages limit for Volume II – Non-Cost Proposal.

Would the Government consider allowing contractors to submit Past Performances as a separate Appendix that does not count towards the 30 pages limit?

The Government will be amending the solicitation to exempt COTS Data Sheets from the Vol II Non -Cost Proposal page limit. Therefore, the 30 page limit should be sufficient to submit the Past performance information requested under Factor 3.

Section L 3.1 Volume I, Legal Offer, 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 Section L 3.3 Volume II – Price Proposal Note on Page 88.

Offerors are to provide one (1) original of solicitation sections A through K with all required certifications and fill-ins completed. If any amendments to the solicitation are issued the Offeror must ensure that such amendment(s) are signed, dated, and returned and/or acknowledged in Block 14 of the SF 33 (section A).

Do contractors need to submit Sections B and K in both Volumes? Please confirm.

One set of Sections A-K per proposal is sufficient. The note on page 88 is reminding Offerors to include sections A-K from the original solicitation and to ensure any amendments (if issued) are signed, dated and included with the proposal (Only Section A of the amendment is required).

SOW

Page 16 Paragraph 3.8.3

a. Please confirm when the PCA/FCA will happen.

We assume in conjunction with or after Government Acceptance Testing

(GAT).

b. What is required of the first articles after PCA/FCA? Are they to be brought back to mission ready?

a. AMENDMENT: The first sentence of the SOW section 3.8.3 will be changed to read: "The Government will perform a PCA and FCA on the first production unit delivered following acceptance of the

TDP."

b. First articles are to be reassembled and mission ready following PCA/FCA.

Section F

Page 34 Paragraph (a)

a. First Article Test- (4) 180 days ADC – Does the Government intend for this to be the completion of EMI/ENV testing? If so, this will define 60 days in the schedule to complete EMI/ENV testing since the TRR is specified to occur 120 days ADC. Is this correct?

b. Government Acceptance Test 30 days after FAT – Does “FAT” mean “First Article Test” or “Factory Acceptance Test”?

a. Correct.

b. "First Article Test" AMENDMENT: Will change List of Acronyms to read: FAT- First Article Test

Page 85 Paragraph 3.2.1 Factor 1 (a)

Solicitation states “Include a list of the hardware and software part numbers and vendor name of COTS items utilized and the datasheet for each COTS item.” Can datasheets be included in an appendix and not count against the 30 page volume limit?

AMENDMENT: COTS Data Sheets will be added to Sec L Table 2.2.1 list of items NOT included in the page limitations.

Other Government Document -

PROC- 2015-

Does the Government require all EMI/ENV testing on all four first articles? Or, can different test be performed on different units in parallel (in the interest of time)? There is a note on page 3 of the LCAC EMI/ENV test procedures (PROC-2015-0011 Rev 1.0) that states, “it is generally inappropriate to conduct [humidity testing] on the same test sample that has previously been subjected to salt fog.

Affirmative. Testing can be divided among the four first articles, as alluded to in PROC-2015-0011.

Other Government Document -

LCAC- C4N-

SPC-322

Pg 29

In the SIU specification (LCAC-C4N-SPC-322) on page 29, there is a requirement 3.9 for Water Intrusion. In Section 4 “Verification”, Table 29, the verification method is listed as “Demonstration” with a Demo/Test Case as “TBD”. Can the Government provide details on how they envision this being demonstrated?

The requirement on Page 29 is for "IEC 60529, Table 8, IPX5." The Government's intent is to allow for the vendor to propose how conformance will be demonstrated.

Page 81 HQ L-2-0016

Section HQ L-2-0016(a) indicates that “offerors shall submit an initial SDP…initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation…”; Section HQ L-2-0016(b) indicates that “Offerors shall also submit an SDP rationale…SDP rationale is subject to the technical proposal page limitations of the solicitation and shall not exceed 10 pages.” Section L 3.2 Volume II Non-Cost Proposal does not reference or require a SDP Rationale and Section L 2.2.1 indicates that Software Development is not included in page limitations. Can the Government please clarify if a SDP Rationale is required for this solicitation, and if so, whether it is to be included in Volume II Non-Cost Proposal and is included in page limitations or should be submitted separately as part of the Software Development plan and is not part of page count?

The INITIAL SDP is required and shall NOT be subject to the technical proposal page limit. SDP RATIONALE is required for this solicitation and IS subject to the technical proposal page limitations. (Vol II, Non-Cost Proposal)

AMENDMENT: Sec L Table 2.2.1 (h) will be changed to read: Software Development Plan (Initial Plan Only)

Page 83/84 Paragraph 2.2.1

Section L 2.2.1 indicates that the Quality Assurance Plan is not included in page limitations, while Section L 3.2 Factor 2 – Quality Assurance requires a Quality Management Plan as part of the volume.

Can the Government please confirm that these are the same requirement/document and is not included Volume II Non-Cost Proposal page limitations?

The Quality Assurance Plan and the Quality Management Plan are considered the same requirement/document and are NOT included in the Vol II Non-Cost Proposal page limitation

Page 83 paragraph 2.2.1

Page 83, Section L 2.2.1 lists the sections excluded from page limitation, which include sections d.

Subcontracting/Teaming/Consulting Agreements,

g. Quality Assurance Plan, h. Software Development Plan, and i. Section J Attachments.

Will the Government please advise to which of the three volumes these sections should be included?

Sections d. Subcontracting/Teaming/Consulting Agreements, g. Quality Assurance Plan, h. Software Development Plan, and i. Section J attachments should be included in Volume II Non-Cost Proposal and will NOT be included in the page limitation. Best Practice: They should be separate from the information with page limitations.

Page 15 Paragraph 3.8.1

Would the Government consider sharing design documentation for the current SIU Tester? It may be possible to save the Government money by adding functionality to the current Tester to use for testing the new SIU developed under this effort. At a minimum, designing the new tester to look and operate like the current tester may lessen the training/learning requirement.

The Government does not have the current SIU Tester's design documentation to provide. However, the contract includes an SIU Tester as GFP (Section

4.2 of the SOW).

SF33 Block 9, Section L.2.1, L.2.1.1

SF33 Block 9 instructs that offers shall include one original and 1 copy to be delivered to Vincent.j.tomasi@navy.mil. This indicates an electronic submittal. However, Section L.2.1 Submissions specifies a hardcopy submittal. Also, Section L.2.1.1 instructs offerors to submit one original and 3 hard copies and one CD. Please clarify the required delivery method and the required number of copies?

AMENDMENT: SF33 Block 9: Will be changed to read: Offers shall include one (1) original and zero

(0) copies delivered to vincent.j.tomasi@navy.mil. or IAW Sec L Para 2.0 AMENDMENT: Section L Paragraph 2.1 Submissions: will be changed to read: Proposals must be submitted via electronic mail or mail (Compact Disc) by the solicitation closing date and time specified on the cover page of this solicitation, block (9).

AMENDMENT: Section L Paragraph 2.1.1 Mail: will be changed to read: Offeror(s) shall complete and submit one (1) proposal via electronic mail or Compact Disc in the following format (Note: Page 1 shall be signed by the Offeror’s authorized official.)

All proposal information shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist identified in block 7 of page one by the time and date reflected in block 9 of page one of the solicitation.

Section B

Item No. 0004

Section B Item No. 0004 Travel CLIN is listed as Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The item states “Specific travel location and duration will be identified in individual delivery orders.” Since the requirement is currently unknown, will you consider changing this item to a cost reimbursable CLIN?

Travel CLIN 0004 is a Not To Exceed (NTE) amount of $12,350.00. It is the firm ceiling amount that will be utilized for this requirement. (FFP).

Travel will be paid based on actual allowable travel cost incurred.

mailto:Vincent.j.tomasi@navy.mil mailto:vincent.j.tomasi@navy.mil

Section L, Section M

Clause HQ L-2-0001, Section L.3.0

Section L Clause HQ L-2-0001 Alternatives to Specifications or Standards paragraph (c) instructs offerors to include in their proposals (1) a copy of any proposed alternative specifications or standards and (2) a rationale describing the advantages of the proposed alternatives.

Paragraph (d) says “Evaluation criteria for alternative specifications and standards is contained in Section M of this solicitation.”

However, Section L.3.0 Proposal Content does not identify where in the proposal to include this content. Additionally, Section M does not include evaluation criteria associated with alternative specifications and standards. Please clarify how any proposed alternative specifications or standards will be evaluated?

Proposals that include Alternatives to Specifications should be part of Vol II and will be evaluated based on their merits in accordance with Section M. The ratings shown in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table on Solicitation Page 91 will be used.

AMENDMENT: HQ L-2-0001 will be added to Table

2.2.1 list of items NOT included in the page limitations..

Section C Section J

Exhibit A DD Form 1423-2 CDRLs, Clause HQ L-2-0016, L.2.2.1, L.3.0

Section L Clause HQ L-2-0016 requires proposals to include (a) an initial Software Development Plan (SDP) and (b) a SDP rationale. Section L.2.2.1 excludes the SDP from the page limitations.

However, Section L.3.0 Proposal Content does not list a SDP as required content in any volume.

Additionally, Section C and Section J Exhibit A DD Form 1423-2 CDRLS do not list a Software Development Plan as a contract deliverable.

Please clarify if offerors should submit a Software Development Plan in their proposals?

is required for this solicitation and IS subject to the technical proposal page limitations. (Vol II, Non-Cost Proposal)

AMENDMENT: Sec L Table 2.2.1 (h) will be changed to read: Software Development Plan (Initial Plan Only)

Section L.3.2

Section L Clause HQ L-2-0016 requires proposals to include a rationale for the Software Development Plan (SDP). However, Section L.3.0 Proposal Content does not list a SDP rationale as required content in Volume II Non-Cost Proposal. Please clarify if the proposal should include a SDP rationale?

is required for this solicitation and IS subject to the technical proposal page limitations. (Vol II, Non-Cost Proposal)

Section L.2.2.1, L.3.2

Section L.2.2.1 specifies that Volume II Non-Cost Proposal is limited to 30 pages. In accordance with Section L Clause HQ-L-2- 0016 and L.3.2, this volume must provide within the page limitation extensive content including: a rationale for the Software Development Plan, a preliminary design for the SIU System (with functional architecture block diagram, mapping of system requirements to lower level elements and interfaces, and technical risk assessment), a Quality Management Plan, and up to three past performance references with detailed narratives. Can you please increase the page limitation for Volume II Non-Cost Proposal to 50 pages to allow offerors to comply with the content requirement?

The Government will be amending the solicitation to exempt COTS Data Sheets and HQ L-2-0001 Alternatives to Specifications and Standards from the Vol II Non -Cost Proposal page limit. The Quality Management Plan / Quality Assurance Plan is not subject to the page limitations. This leaves the preliminary design (Factor 1), rationale for the Software Development Plan, and Past Performances (Factor 3) within the 30 page limitation.

AMENDMENT: COTS Data Sheets will be added to Sec L Table 2.2.1 list of items NOT included in the page limitations.

AMENDMENT: HQ L-2-0001 will be added to Table

2.2.1 list of items NOT included in the page limitations.

Section C.3.13 DD Form 1423-2 CDRLs, Section L.2.2.1, L.3.0, L.3.2

Section L.2.2.1 identifies that the Quality Assurance Plan is not included in the page limitations. However, Section L.3.0 Proposal Content does not list a Quality Assurance Plan as required proposal content. Section C.3.13 and Section J Exhibit A DD Form 1423-2 CDRLs require a Quality Assurance Program Plan with the first submittal due 30 calendar days after contract award. Based on this, we understand that the proposal narrative should address only the content requirements listed in Section L.3.2.1 Factor 2 Quality Assurance; correct?

A Quality Management Plan is required and should address the requirements listed in Factor 2, Quality Assurance.

Section L.2.1.1.d, L.3.0

Section L.2.1.1.d Mail identifies a “staffing plan” as part of the proposal. However, Section L.3.0 Proposal Content does not list a staffing plan as required content for any volume. Please confirm that offerors should NOT submit a staffing plan in their proposals?

Offerors are NOT required to submit a staffing plan for this requirement.

AMENDMENT: Section L paragraph 2.1.1 (d) will be changed to omit "with the exception of a staffing plan".

Section C, 3.3.7

What is the Navy’s position/preference for the SIU operating system? We understand the LCAC currently uses VxWorks on more than one subsystem. Linux is a suitable alternative and would save the Navy on VxWorks runtime and developer license fees. Is the Navy willing to consider Linux as the deployed SIU operating system?

The Government's preference is for the SIU to not contain an operating system (be firmware based) to ease the burden with implementing SOW paragraphs

3.3.7 and 3.3.17 and the volatile memory objectives of SIU Spec Section 3.1.

However, if an operating system is required as part of the design, the Government is willing to consider the use of Linux as the deployed operating system.

Government's order of preference for operating systems (most preferred to least): VxWorks, Linux, Windows.

Section B

Item No 1001 Option, 2001 Option, 3001 Option, and 4001 Option

Item No 1001 Option, 2001 Option, 3001 Option, and 4001 Option refers to “Base Year.” Should those refer to option years 1, 2, 3, and 4? Also, the SOW para 3.15.1 reference should be 3.15.2.

AMENDMENT: CLIN 1001, CLIN 2001, CLIN 3001,

and CLIN 4001 will be changed to read: Production Units, FFP, Option Year- Labor, Materials and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and SOW paragraph 3.15.2 FOB: Destination PSC CD 5998

Paragraph 3.7

SOW Para 3.7 defines CDRL A004 for the TDP and identifies the scope as all items listed SOW para 3.2, which includes CDRLs A001, A002, and A003.

Does the government expect two submissions of the documents associated with CDRLs A001, A002, and A003 as those CDRLs and again under CDRL A004? Some items like CDRL A002 VDD are not documents typically delivered at CDR (i.e., the software is not sufficiently completed to produce a VDD) as stated in CDRL A004 1423-2 Blk 12.

Updates to CDRLs A001, A002, and A003 should be captured and delivered as part of A004; otherwise, two deliveries is not intended.

SOW directs that 80% of the TDP is necessary at CDR (Section 3.9.3). 80% may be constituted by 80% of each item, by 80% of total items, or a combination and is to be evaluated at the time of submission.

Paragraph 3.8.3

SOW Para 3.8.3 states the PCA/FCA is scheduled to be performed on the first article units. The first article units are not required to be identical to the production units identified in SOW para 3.15 (see para 3.8.1). Recommend the PCA/FCA be conducted on unit number one of the production units delivered under SOW para 3.15.1 using the final TDP CDRL cited in that text.

AMENDMENT: The first sentence of the SOW section 3.8.3will be changed to read: "The Government will perform a PCA and FCA on the first production unit delivered following acceptance of the

TDP."

Specification

LCAC-

C4N-SPC-

Paragraph 3.6.1.1

SIU Specification LCAC-C4N-SPC-322 paragraph 3.6.1.1, Operational Temperature cites an ambient air operating temperature of +80 deg C.

The existing LCAC SIU maximum ambient air operating temperature is +72 deg C, which appears to have been an adequate rating over the past 16 years of operation. Is there a technical basis for the +8 deg C increase in the maximum operating temperature? For comparison, the new LCAC-100 specification has a maximum temperature rating of +71 deg C for equipment in spaces where the SIU is located.

High operational temperature rating was increased to +80 C in 2011 based on a full environmental analysis performed as a collaborative effort between NSWC PCD and Eglin AFB.

Paragraph 3.6.1.2

SIU Specification LCAC-C4N-SPC-322 paragraph 3.6.1.2, Non- Operation Temperature states, “The SIU shall operate…” and lists the high storage temperature at +85 deg C. The requirement, as written, does not agree with the storage temperature test Procedure I in MIL- STD-810 and effectively invalidates the Operational temperature specification in para

3.6.1.1. Procedure I, requires a soak (typically 10 hours

or more) at the operational temperature limit (+80 deg C) after the storage temperature soak cycle (+85 deg C).

Soaking the SIU at +85 deg C for 10 hours and starting it without allowing it to equilibrate to the maximum operating temperature (another 10- hour soak) would be considered an over test condition. The non- operational temperature requirement need only cite the storage temperature limits at which no damage shall occur. Following the MIL-STD-810 storage temperature test procedure outline will ensure the equipment is tested correctly within the cited temperature limits.

SIU requirement does not specify duration of time allowed between storage temperature soak and operating temperature test. 10 hour soak at maximum operating temperature is acceptable prior to start of 2 hours of operation.

From LCAC-C4N-SPC-322:

The SIU shall operate for a minimum of 2 hours at the high operating temperature limit following a minimum of 10 hours in storage at an ambient air temperature of +85°C.

Paragraph 3.9

SIU Specification LCAC-C4N-SPC-322 paragraph 3.9 cites IEC 60529, Table 8, IPX5. That document is not identified in section 3.2, Non-Government Publications.

There are ten documents on ANSI web store with different dates/version numbers that refer to 60529.

Please identify the applicable revision/approval date that will be used as the requirement criteria for water intrusion. Further, “IPX5” is not a recognized IP rating, the first digit range (shown as “X” in the IPX5) label is 0- 6 for foreign body intrusion protection. The correct requirement would cite “Ingress Protection” and the requited IP rating (IP45 for example). The appropriate IEC document and revision should be listed in Para 2.3.

ANSI/IEC 60529-2004.

Foreign object intrusion protection is not being rated as part of the requirement, hence the "X."

Water intrusion is the focus of the requirement and is specified as a rating of 5.

Industry Question Government Response

Other Government Document PROC-

2015-0011

1. The government "Affirmative" response indicates all four first articles require EMI/ENV testing. This is an excessive and unnecessary requirement that has significant test implications for duplicating the test support equipment required to conduct the tests. Either you conduct the test fourtimes with one set of support equipment or once on all four units with 4X the support equipment. Please state the exact scope of the testing required.

The affirmative was intended for the second question on the line -- "Or, can different test be performed on different units in parallel (in the interest of time)?" The first part, "...all EMI/EMV testing on all four first articles?" is negative.

Other Government Document PROC-

2015-0011

2. The first articles are production representative units, however they may be different from the production units as a result of the FAT/GAT outcome. Any changes to the configuration as directed by the government under the contract would invalidate the EMI/ENV test results without an engineering impact analysis (not required in the contract).

EMI/ENV testing should be conducted AFTER the first article GAT is approved by the government. That action would also require additional schedule time to complete and incorporate any remediation in addition to the EMI/ENV testing.

Agreed that this would be ideal but, in the interest of time, we're looking to compress the schedule and perform the testing earlier with the assumption that significant changes will not be necessary following FAT/GAT, although small changes (such as to software) may be required. If significant changes are necessary, the Government will perform the analysis.

Other Government Document PROC-

2015-0011

3. The referenced document, PROC-2015-0011, is not applicable to the SIU and is incorrectly cited in SIU Specification LCAC-C45N-SPC-322 Table 29 as the test case. PROC-2015-011 is for testing the LCAC SBC4 C4N system, less the SIU. The SIU configuration in PROC-2015-011 is in fact a SIU simulator (Figure B-1 EUT Setup Block Diagram). Unless the government intends to GFE the entire SBC4 C4N setup required to execute the procedures in PROC-2015-011 and modify the procedure it include the SIU as an EUT item, the procedure is an invalid requirement for the test cases cited in Table 29. We recommend that the government require an additional CDRL be developed for a SIU EMI/ENV Test Procedure that follows the format and content of PROC-2015-0011. That procedure would limit the EUT item to the SIU and utilize the SIU Test Set as the support equipment for conducting operational testing.

Correct. The procedure was developed originally for the C4N suite -- not to test as a whole but to test each piece individually -- and does not specifically call out the SIU. The test methods and constraints, though,are still applicable.

Other Government Document PROC-

2015-0011

4. In cases where we have COTS EMI/ENV data for our solution that shows acceptable performance, will qualification by analysis or similarity be permitted?

Qualification by analysis may be permitted in lieu of testing dependent upon the quality of the COTS EMI/EMV data. That determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis during product development.

Other Government Document PROC-

2015-0011

5. There is no traceability in the SOW or CDRLs for a SIU EMI/ENV test report. That report is not part of a FAT test or other TDP document based on the SOW descriptions. The only linkage to even conducting the EMI/ENV test is in the 3.1 General paragraph invoking the requirements of LCAC-SPEC-C4N-322 and the associated Table 29 test case demonstration using PROC-2015-0011. The SOW should specifically address the EMI/ENV testing withrespect to the schedule and any associated CDRLs.

The SIU EMI/ENV test is conducted as a part of the First Article Test (See LCAC-C4N-SPC- 322, Table 29. Verification, 3.6.6). Therefore, the SIU EMI/ENV test is traceable to the First Article Test (FAT) in the SOW (section 3.8.1) and the First Article Test Report (CDRL A006).

AMENDMENT: The first paragraph in SOW paragraph 3.8.1 will be changed to read: The Contractor shall deliver four (4) first article SIUs for verification testing. The First Article shall be produced in a manner that is representative of the manufacturing process and capability that will be used for the life of the order. The Contractor shall conduct the first article test on units in accordance with LCAC-C4N-SPC-322 (and PROC-2015-0011 when invoked by LCAC-C4N-SPC-322) prior to delivery using the provided SIU Tester as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and the newly developed SIU Tester. The Contractor shall document the First Article test results.

Clarification to RFP Ref: Other Government Document - PROC-2015-0011, Page 3 -Question and Response RFP Reference

End of Industry Questions

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The number of offeror copies required has decreased by 1 from 1 to 0.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 1001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Base Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and.

SOW paragraph 3.15.1

To:

Option Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and. SOW paragraph 3.15.2

CLIN 2001

Base Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and.

Option Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP

CLIN 3001

Base Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and.

Option Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP

CLIN 4001

Base Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and.

Option Year- Labor, Materials, and Delivery to fabricate the LCAC SIU's in accordance with the finalized TDP and.

SOW paragraph 3.15.2

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Indicates change

STATEMENT OF WORK

FOR THE

SENSOR INTERFACE UNIT (SIU)

1. SCOPE

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) Code E31, as the ISEA for the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) program, is tasked with the support of the LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) craft configuration. This requirement is for the design, fabrication, test, and delivery of LCAC Command, Control, Computers, Communications, and Navigation (C4N) Sensor Interface Units (SIU). The SIU is the required interface and aggregator for various craft sensors and transmits the data collected to the LCAC Control & Alarm Monitoring System (CAMS). The SIU sensors monitor critical operating machinery and craft transducers. It is the Government’s desire that currently designed solutions and Commercial Off-The- Shelf (COTS) products be utilized to meet this requirement as opposed to newly designed solutions. The craft configuration is designed to be outfitted with four identical SIUs per craft.

2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

The following specifications, standards, and handbooks form a part of this SOW to the extent cited herein. All reference documents may be used for guidance unless otherwise specified within the body of this SOW. Guidance documents may be used as an aid in identifying applicable topics to be addressed consistent with meeting the requirements of the program. The Contractor is not required to use any document cited “for guidance” or “as guidance”.

In the event of conflict between the documents referenced herein and the contents of this SOW, the order of precedence clause of this contract shall apply. When, in the opinion of the Contractor, a deviation from standards or requirements of this SOW is in order, the Contractor shall make a request for deviation in writing to the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) with an information copy to the designated technical representative. The Government will notify the Contractor in writing of approval or disapproval, of the deviation, within thirty (30) days after receipt by the ACO.

2.1 Military Specifications and Standards

Number Title Date

MIL-STD-882E System Safety 11 May 2012

MIL-STD-31000A with Notice 1 Technical Data Packages 12-Dec-2017

2.2 Military Instructions

DODI 8582.01 Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD Information Systems 27 Oct 2017

DODI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT) 28 July 2017

DOD 8570.01-M Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program 10 Nov 2015

2.3 Other Government Documents

CDR-Checklist-FRM Critical Design Review (CDR) Entrance and Exit Criteria Feb 2016

LCAC-C4N-SPC-322

Specification for the LCAC SLEP Sensor

Interface Unit (SIU) for the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) Expeditionary C4N

Systems Branch

24 Apr 2018

MIL-HDBK-344A Environmental Stress Screening of Electronic Equipment 16 Aug 1993

NIST SP 800-53 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations 22 Jan 2015

NIST SP 800-53A

Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in

Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Building Effective Assessment

Plans

18 Dec 2014

PROC-2015-0011

System Baseline Configuration 4 (SBC4)

Electromagnetic Interference/Environmental (EMI/ENV) Operational and Reference Test

Procedures for the Landing Craft Air Cushion

1.0

SPEC-2018-0001

Specification for the LCAC SLEP Sensor Interface Unit (SIU) Tester for the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) Expeditionary

C4N Systems Branch

11 May 2018

TRR-Checklist-FRM Test Readiness Review (TRR) Entrance and Exit Criteria Feb 2016

ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems - Requirements Sep 2015

ASTM-D3951 Packaging, Commercial 21 Dec 1990

NOTE: Military Specifications, Standards, Handbooks, and Data Item Descriptions are available from:

https://assist.dla.mil/online/start/. Requests for the specifications LCAC-C4N-SPC-322, SPEC-2018-0001, PROC-2015-0011, CDR-Checklist-FRM, and TRR-Checklist-FRM can only be made available to U.S. DoD contractors (distribution limited) upon request to the Contracting Office.

3. REQUIREMENTS

3.1 General

The work required by this contract shall be performed in accordance with LCAC-C4N-SPC-322, SPEC-2018-0001, and this SOW. In the event of a conflict or contradiction between LCAC-C4N-SPC-322 and this SOW, LCAC-C4N- SPC-322 shall have precedence. In the event of a conflict or contradiction between SPEC-2018-0001 and this SOW, SPEC-2018-0001 shall have precedence.

The Contractor shall plan, design, develop, fabricate, integrate, and test the Sensor Interface Unit to meet the requirements of LCAC-C4N-SPC-322, SPEC-2018-0001, and the detailed requirements in this SOW.

3.2 Design and Engineering

3.2.1 The Contractor shall design the Sensor Interface Unit (SIU) in accordance with specification LCAC-C4N-

SPC-322.

3.2.2 The Contractor shall design the SIU Tester in accordance with specification SPEC-2018-0001.

3.2.3 The Contractor shall design, develop source code, integrate, test, document, and deliver system software and component firmware for the configuration end item. Whenever possible, the contractor shall utilize software, hardware, or firmware that has already been designed, developed, coded, tested, and released. The cost of reutilizing hardware, software, or firmware (such as licenses) shall be included in the unit cost of the item or CDRL it is associated with. All software and firmware delivered as part of this contract shall include all source materials, including source code, source documentation, build-environment documentation, and licenses sufficient for the Government to be able to modify and/or reproduce the software executables.

(CDRL A001)

3.2.4 The Contractor shall prepare/update a Version Description Document (VDD) for the Computer Software

Configuration Items (CSCIs) and firmware provided under this product. (CDRL A002)

3.2.5 The Contractor shall ensure design reproducibility throughout the lifecycle of the product by using cost effective and reproducible methods, processes, and material for manufacturing the equipment to meet performance and cost objectives.

3.2.6 Reliability (CDRL A003)

• The Contractor shall calculate Mean Time Between Failure (MBTF) and provide to the Government.

• The Contractor shall calculate Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) and provide those to the Government.

• The Contractor shall perform a Fault Tree Analysis for the final product.

• The Contractor shall create a failure modes effects and criticality analysis for the configuration end-item.

• The Contractor shall calculate the reliability and maintainability metrics of the SIU in accordance with standard industry practices.

3.2.7 The use of special test or diagnostic equipment shall be minimized. The need for, description of, and planned execution of any special test or diagnostic equipment shall be presented at the Critical Design Review, Section 3.9.3, for approval by the Government or rejection for rework. If any diagnostic equipment is approved by the Government, it shall be demonstrated to the Government at NSWC PCD during the First Article Acceptance Testing (FAAT), and procedures shall be documented in the Operations User’s Manual.

The Contractor shall include the special test and diagnostic equipment as part of the TDP.

3.3 General Cybersecurity Requirements

3.3.1 The Contractor shall deliver an authorizable system in accordance with DoD Instruction 8510.01, Risk

Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT).

3.3.2 The Contractor shall develop, document, configuration manage, and deliver a system compliant with the appropriate National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53A assessment procedures and the NIST SP 800-53 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, for the Government to obtain a Risk Management Framework (RMF) authorization IAW DoDI 8510.01.

3.3.3 The Contractor shall practice software assurance including static source code analysis on organic and third party open source software to mitigate software vulnerabilities during development.

3.3.4 The contractor shall ensure that each baseline and subsequent software builds are free from malicious code.

3.3.5 The Contractor shall ensure that for each software baseline and subsequent software builds, the Contractor’s software development environment incorporates updated Anti-Virus definitions that are current to within 30 days from the end of development.

3.3.6 The Contractor shall ensure that any embedded systems or solutions that only implement software via firmware are scanned with the most current Anti-Virus scanning tool(s) prior to delivery.

3.3.7 The contractor shall harden any COTS Operating Systems (OS) utilized using the applicable Defense

Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Requirements Guide (SRG) or Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) and their associated DISA development tools which can be found at http://iase.disa.mil/.

3.3.8 The Contractor shall implement ports, protocols, and services in accordance with DODI 8551.1 and uninstall or disable ports, protocols, applications and services which are not used.

3.3.9 The Contractor shall comply with all current DoD and DISA standards and requirements for acceptable

Ports, Protocols, and Services. Any request for exception to these requirements must be made through the Project Manager to the AO.

3.3.10 The Contractor shall generate a list of ports, protocols, and services that are being used. (CDRL A022)

3.3.11 “Administrative” accounts, for use by the system administrator for System software upgrades and maintenance, shall be password protected. Administrative passwords shall be a minimum length of 15 characters and consists of a mix of upper case letters, lower case letters, numbers, and special characters, including at least one of each.

3.3.12 The Contractor shall ensure that all factory-set or default firmware passwords are changed prior to delivery of the System. Each password shall be a minimum length of 15 characters and consists of a mix of upper case letters, lower case letters, numbers, and special characters, including at least one of each. Each password shall be protected such that they are not embedded in access scripts or stored on function keys.

The architecture shall be designed to enable future growth with reasonable additional cost so that with Government concurrence, the password complexity can be modified as necessary. The Government understands that any additional work resulting from a changed requirement must have sufficient contract resourcing.

http://iase.disa.mil/

3.3.13 The Contractor shall evaluate ALL currently available DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides

(STIGs), Security Checklists, and Security Requirements Guides (SRGs) (available at http://iase.disa.mil/) for system applicability.

3.3.14 The Contractor shall provide a list of those STIGs deemed applicable along with justification for those determined to be Not Applicable for Government concurrence. (CDRL A023)

3.3.15 The Contractor shall implement the Government approved list of STIGs to the extent possible without adversely affecting system development or operational performance.

3.3.16 The Contractor shall ensure assets under development have ALL applicable electronic patches for the system installed when the system is delivered to the Government.

3.3.17 The Contractor shall maintain any development environments in accordance with cybersecurity best practices and operational requirements. During product development for the Government, the Contractor shall ensure that all cybersecurity mitigation strategies have been applied to the development environment prior to any Government data being loaded onto any assets or software for testing or delivery.

• Cybersecurity mitigation strategies include security updates, service packs, and changes to operating procedures as physical and cyber vulnerabilities are detected. Operating system, routers, servers, development platforms, and the application being delivered to the Government shall comply with all known applicable Department of Defense Computer Emergency Response Team (DoD-CERT) Alert, Bulletin, and Technical Advisory Notices published during the past 36 months.

3.3.18 The Contractor shall assist the Government by preparing RMF documentation and perform the vulnerability testing necessary to assess and authorize the system IAW the RMF.

3.3.19 The Contractor shall employ the tenets of defense-in-depth for laying cybersecurity solutions within a given

IT asset and among assets; and ensuring appropriate robustness of the solution, as determined by the relative strength of the mechanism and the confidence that it is implemented and will perform as intended.

Additional guidance can be found in the Navy Information Assurance Technical Authority (IA TA) Defense-in-Depth Functional Implementation Architecture (DFIA) Standard.

3.3.20 The Contractor shall establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physicals safeguards to protect any and all Government systems and data, to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, and non-repudiation of Government data. As a minimum, this shall include provisions for personnel security, electronic security, and physical security.

3.4 Platform Information Technology

3.4.1 The Contractor shall provide objective quality evidence for submittal to the appropriate Authorizing Official as required by published DON CIO Platform IT Policy and NAVSEA PIT-Control Systems Cybersecurity Governance and Guidance.

3.5 Cybersecurity Contractor Training and Certification

3.5.1 The Contractor shall ensure that personnel who are categorized as working within DoD IA Workforce meet the appropriate requirements of DoD 8570.01-M.

3.6 Supply Chain Safeguards for Systems Engineering

3.6.1 In addition to the components a program determines are critical for other reasons (e.g., safety critical), the Contractor shall identify the mission-critical functions that may result in Level I or Level II protection failures due to operational, system information, or component integrity aspects.

http://iase.disa.mil/

3.6.2 Adapting the MIL-STD-882E System Safety Program definitions of criticality to mission criticality the contractor shall define the following criticality levels:

• Level I (Catastrophic) protection failure – a failure that results in total compromise of mission capability which may cause unintended loss of system.

• Level II (Critical) protection failure – a failure that results in unacceptable compromise of mission capability or significant mission degradation which may cause significant system damage.

• Level III (Marginal) protection failure – a failure that results in partial compromise of mission capability or partial mission degradation.

• Level IV (Negligible) protection failure – a failure that results in little or no compromise of mission capability.

3.6.3 For each Level I and Level II mission-critical function identified by the Contractor in the criticality analysis, the contractor shall identify the associated logic-bearing system components that implement, or introduce vulnerability to these functions (hereafter referred to collectively as the “critical components”). (CDRL A024)

3.6.4 The Contractor shall demonstrate that the Contractor has visibility into its supply chain for critical components, understands the risks to that supply chain, and has implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations to counter those risks.

3.6.5 The Contractor shall plan for the reduction of foreign intelligence, technology exploitation, supply chain and battlefield threats, and system vulnerabilities that result in the catastrophic (Level I) and critical (Level II) protection failures, including:

1. The application of supply chain risk management best practices, applied as appropriate to the development of the system. Supply chain risk management key practices may be found in the NIST Interagency Report 7622, Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management for Federal Information Systems, and the National Defense Industrial Association Guidebook, Engineering for System Assurance, both publicly available.

2. The enumeration of potential suppliers of critical components, as they are identified, including cost, schedule, and performance information relevant for choice among alternatives and planned selection for the purpose of engaging with the government to develop mutually-agreeable risk management plans for the suppliers to be solicited.

3. The processes to control access by foreign nationals to program information, including, but not limited to, system design information, DoD-unique technology, and software or hardware used to integrate commercial technology.

4. The processes and practices employed to ensure that genuine information and communications technology (ICT) will be employed in the solution and that processes and requirements for genuine ICT are levied upon subcontractors.

5. The process used to protect unclassified DoD information in the development environment.

3.6.6 The provisions of SOW paragraph 3.6.1 and SOW paragraph 3.6.4 shall be included in the solicitations and subcontracts for all suppliers, suitably modified to identify the parties.

3.6.7 The Contractor shall ensure that updated criticality analysis assumptions, rationale, results, and supply chain risk information and mitigations are made available for Government review for each Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR).

3.7 Technical Data Package (CDRL A004)

The Contract shall develop a production level TDP in accordance with the requirements of MIL-STD-31000A. The TDP shall include those items listed in Section 3.2. The TDP shall also include production representative drawings of production and peculiar test equipment (i.e. alignment fixtures, test fixtures, and special tooling); Version Description Document(s) (VDD); Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality (FMECA) assessment; Firmware or Software Installation Procedures; Master Parts List (PL) with estimated component costs and weights; component information sanitization procedures; and component removal procedures. Drawings that are considered NDI and COTS shall be documented on vendor item drawings.

3.8 Fabrication

The Contractor shall fabricate the Sensor Interface Unit in accordance with the technical data package as developed under this statement of work.

3.8.1 First Article (CDRL A005, A006)

The Contractor shall deliver four (4) first article SIUs for verification testing. The First Article shall be produced in a manner that is representative of the manufacturing process and capability that will be used for the life of the order. The Contractor shall conduct the first article test on units in accordance with LCAC- C4N-SPC-322 (and PROC-2015-0011 when invoked by LCAC-C4N-SPC-322) prior to delivery using the provided SIU Tester as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and the newly developed SIU Tester. The Contractor shall document the First Article test results.

The Contractor shall not proceed with fabrication of the remaining items until first article approval is obtained in writing from the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The Contractor shall be responsible for retesting the First Article for any failure to meet the requirements of LCAC-C4N-SPC-322. The Contractor shall inform the Government of any planned process or material changes for the production of the remaining articles prior to coordinating the First Article Testing.

Any effort by the Contractor to enter into production prior to acceptance of the preproduction unit shall be solely at the risk of the Contractor.

3.8.2 Factory Acceptance (CDRL A007, A008)

The Contractor shall conduct Factory Acceptance Tests on all units, including the First Article units, in accordance with the requirements contained in drawings and specifications listed in the Technical Data Packages and in accordance with the Contractor’s Factory Acceptance Test Plan. The Contractor shall not commence testing until the test plan is approved by the Government. The Government reserves the right to inspect the Contractor’s test equipment as part of the Government’s approval of the test plan. The Government reserves the right to independently test the First Article units (requirements contained in drawings and specifications listed in the Technical Data Packages) or witness the tests conducted by the Contractor. The Contractor shall prepare a Factory Acceptance Test Report which shall include appendices, personal notes, test analyses, error analyses, confidence levels, and all computerized data collection and reduction results.

3.8.3 Physical Configuration Audit and Functional Configuration Audit (CDRL A009) The Government will perform a PCA and FCA on the first production unit delivered following acceptance of the TDP.