L-5 NSS Question and Answer List - Responses 8NOV2022.pdf

Notes Responses are subject to change. Any responses to subsequent question sets shall superceed responses herin.

Nothing in these responses superceeds requirements as stated in the solicitation.

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response

Posted

A-1 RFP Request revision to RFP section L.2.4.1 to 21 days after RFP release (05 October 2022). Section L 2.4.1 18-Oct-22

The RFP states "All questionnaires should be forwarded within 14 calendar days from the RFP release date." The 14 days is not a requirement, as it does not state shall, rather it is a guideline to ensure PPQ's are submitted timely for the evaluation.

11/2/2022

A-2 RFP What is the due date for PPQ's? Section L 19-Oct-22 There is no specific due date. The Government recommends the Offerors to send the PPQs out as soon as practical. As stated in L-1 Vo1 2 PPQ.docx, the Government requests the return "within 2 weeks from the receipt of this questionnaire."

11/2/2022

A-3

Annex A - Supporting

Documentation for Past Performance

Requirement: Offeror shall only provide the following for each contract reference noted in Attachment PP-1 (Contract Summary): 1) conformed contract document; and 2) complete SOW or PWS, and/or complete Performance Specification; and if applicable 3) subcontract agreement.

Comment: Under a JV, one party is the managing partner and submitting required ANNEX A reference documents on behalf of both JV Partners.

Question: Due to the sensitive nature of confidential data appearing in the required response documents that both JV partners would be able to see as part of the ANNEX A proposal submission, would the Government allow submission of certain contract reference documents as separate, password protected PDFs in order to maintain the confidentiality of competitive information? Alternatively, would the Govenment allow a JV partner to summit a separate ANNEX A to the government directly?

2.5 Past Performance

Relevancy Instructions; Section

2.5.2 | page 87 of 112; Requirement text: 1) conformed contract document;

and 2) complete SOW or PWS, and/or complete Performance Specification; and if applicable 3) subcontract agreement.

24-Oct-22

Offerors may submit password protected PDF files as part of the submission process IAW Section L, Part A, 4.2. Offerors shall provide the passwords to David Kors and Duane Drury no later than the submission receipt date provided in Section A of the solicitation. Offerors are reminded to include the Authorization Letters for each JV Team Member as instructed in Section L, 2.2 Autherization Letters.

11/2/2022

A-4 Pricing

With respect to shipping/travel locations, in previous iterations of this RFP the USG either identified CONUS and OCONUS locations for shipping/travel (in order to standardize between offerors), or the USG stated that shipping/travel costs would be negotiated separately (upon approval to ship). For this RFP, does the USG plan to do either of these (standardize or negotiate) or shall offerors price shipping/travel without such guidance?

L-2 Vol 3 Price Attachment -

Protected - Att J- 3_System Pricing Tab

21-Oct-22

Shipping/travel will not be separately negotiated for catalog items and need to be included in proposed catalog item pricing.

Historical pricing has indicated that the time and resources required for both the Government and contractor to conduct negotiations for travel costs for different locations has exceeded any potential cost savings.

11/2/2022

A-5 Delivery of Laptop Are there specific markings or delivery requirements for shipping the laptop?

Are hand deliveries of the laptop allowed?

Section L, Part A, Paragarph 4.3 24-Oct-22

Hand deliveries are strongly preferred. If offerors are shipping the demonstration media, this should be coordinated with David Kors and Duane Drury. The laptops shall be password protected with the password to be provided to David Kors and Duane Drury. A tracking number shall also be provided. Deliveries must be made no later than the date and time of the solicitation due date provided in Section A of the solicitation.

11/2/2022

Posted

A-6 RFP

What is the evaluation for the technical demonstrations? Are they pass / fail or rated like the other technical sections?

Industry Day 10/26/2022

The technical demonstrations will be evaluated IAW Section (M)(II)(A)(1.1). The tech demonstrations are not evaluated as a pass / fail. Additionally, Section M(I)(B) states "Elements within the Technical Factor are not weighted or rated sub factors." The technical volume will be given a combined technical / risk rating IAW Section M(II)(A)(2.0).

11/2/2022

A-7 Proposal due date A request has been made to exted the due date of the proposal to 15 December 2022.

Industry Day 10/26/2022

The Government is discussing a proposal receipt extension.

Information will be forthcoming in a solicitation amendment. 11/2/2022

A-8 Proposal due date A request has been made to exted the due date of the proposal 60 days beyond the current proposal receipt date of 5 December 2022. 24-Oct-22 See the response to A-7. 11/2/2022

A-9 TEP quantities

Does the Government view a change in quantity in the TEP as a change in requirements which might trigger an opportunity to reassess catalog pricing?

For example, if the vendor prices quantity 1 in the solicitation pricing attachment for year 2 on NSST-3 but the Government decides to order a quantity of 4 NSST-3's in year 2. Will the contractor be provided the opportunity to re-quote to take advantage of quantity pricing?

Industry Day 10/26/2022

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP), calcuated in accordance with Section M, is only used during the evaluation of proposals. The estimated quantities provided in Solicitation Attachment L-2 are only estimates of the quantity of items to be ordered and when those orders may take place. The estimates do not represent firm quantities that will be ordered. The proposed prices for the catalog pricing items will be incorproated as Attachment 3 of the catalog and will not be re-negotiated regardless of the quantity of items ordered.

11/2/2022

A-11 Pricing

Per RFP Attachment L-2 DO 1 CLIN Pricing (0001) the NSST Baseline 2 system will be developed and implemented using a firm-fixed price contract.

and DO1 SOW para 3.2.1.1.1 (pg 3) states “contractor shall modernize and reestablish the NSST software baseline using current generation state-of-the-art software technology” and follow full lifecycle practices per IEEE 11207-2017 to develop the NSST 2 software baseline including requirements analysis through implementation and T&E.

Question. Why is the Government choosing to use a rigid fixed price contract approach that is contrary to current DoD AAF software acquisition policies that recommend a flexible and modular contract strategy that enables software development teams to rapidly design, develop, test, integrate, deploy, and support software capabilities?

Question. Will the Government reconsider using a cost reimbursable contract that provides needed flexibility to develop the software baseline and is aligned with current DoD Adaptive Acquisition Framework pathway policies?

Attachment L-2 Vol 3 Pricing Attachment

IDIQ DO1 SOW

210024 Sec.3.2.1.1.1

28-Oct-22

The comment is noted. The Government has decided to solicit Delivery Order 1 as Firm Fixed Price as it believes the requirements are well defined enough to allow for a firm fixed price.

Posted

A-12 Pricing

In accordance with the SOW [3.2.1.1.1] (pg 3) and Government stated responses that contractors shall use of current state-of-the art software technology that is “open to interpretation” [B-13] and MOSA as “enhancement to previous contract requirements” [C-25] without a defined interoperability profile of required standards to modernize the current baseline nor any specified system improvement requirements [C-2].

Additionally, the Government requires the contractor adhere to lifecycle development practices [SOW 3.2.2.2] (pg. 5) and states, “a complete requirements analysis needs to be performed” [B-4] and the “product baseline is not established until the critical design stage” [B-6] is complete.

Until the open-ended requirements are decomposed, refined, validated and the baseline is established contractors cannot reliably provide a firm fixed-price contract to develop, implement and deploy the NSST 2 baseline.

Recommendation: Per FAR Subpart 16.103 (b) Contract Type and 16.301- 2 Application, we recommend the Government include a cost-reimbursement contract to design and develop the NSST 2 baseline and use the firm-fixed price contract to implement and deploy the system to the required sites.

IDIQ DO1 SOW

210024 Sec.3.2.1.1.1 and 3.2.2.2

NSS QCRR

Government Response (31 Aug 2022) Items B-4 & C- 2, C-25

NSS QCRR

Government Response (19 Sep 2022) Item B-6, B-13

28-Oct-22 The comment is noted. The Government has decided to solicit Delivery Order 1 as Firm Fixed Price. 11/2/2022

A-13 Pricing Does the “Anticipated Number of Systems Per Year” in Attachment L-2 Att J-3 System Pricing indicate the ordering period or delivery/acceptance?+C4 Attachment L-2 Att J-

3 System Pricing 28-Oct-22 The prices indicated are for each ordering period. 11/2/2022

A-14 Pricing (CLIN 1001)

Per RFP Section C.1: CLIN 1001 para 2a (pg 4) states “Catalog Pricing IAW SOW 210023 and PRF 210025. Detailed catalog pricing requirements are found at SOW 210023 paragraph 1.3.2 and section 3.3, and PRF 210025.

and Per RFP Section L: 3.1.1 (pg 94) Offerors shall “use Attachment L-2 which represents catalog pricing to be attached to the IDIQ as Section J Attachment 3 pricing”

Question: As product quantities are a “theoretical scenario” in Attachment L- 2 and do not include definitive minimum total quantities or lot quantity orders per year, does the Government recognize industry has no reasonable method to amortize non-recurring costs (SOW 210023 Section 3.3 catalog detailed requirements) or apply “economies of scale” discounts into a contractually bound “per unit” price?

RFP Section C.1:

CLIN 1001 para 2a

RFP Section L: 3.1.1

28-Oct-22

The Government is not offerring a minimum guarantee beyond delivery order 1.

The Government is not seeking special discounts for lot orders.

Posted

A-15 Pricing

In accordance with SOW [Section 3.3] (pg 33) and Government response [B- 1] where “Offerors need to account for all costs to deliver products in conformance with the specified requirements in the proposed catalog pricing.”, there is no method to allocate non-reoccurring engineering costs using a “per unit” catalog pricing schedule without establishing system lot order quantities.

Recommendation: We recommend the Government establish a separate CLIN to price the IDIQ SOW 3.3 non-reoccurring engineering costs.

IDIQ Base SOW 210023 Sec. 3.3

NSS QCRR

Government Response (31 Aug 2022) Items B-1

28-Oct-22

NRE enabling catalog approach deliveries should be included in DO1 effort. The Government may solicit additional NRE work in future delivery orders using the SOW approach for negotiated requirements IAW solicitation Section C.1.2.(b) and C.2.2.(a).

11/2/2022

A-16 Pricing

DO1 SOW para 3.2.1.1.1 (pg 3) states “contractor shall modernize and reestablish the NSST software baseline using current generation state-of-the-art software technology” and lifecycle practices per IEEE 12207-2017 to develop the NSST 2 software baseline including requirements analysis through implementation and T&E.

Question: If the Catalog Services pricing is not used for "evaluation purposes only" as indicated in cell I4 of the Attachment L-2 spreadsheet, then how does the Government expect the Offeror to provide contractually bound FFP catalog prices if the development and implementation of the NSST 2 system baseline is not approved until DO 1 is completed?

Recommendation: Government use the catalog prices for evaluation purposes only.

IDIQ DO1 SOW

210024 Sec.3.2.1.1.1

L-2 Pricing Worksheet and Evalution

28-Oct-22

The "Evaluation Purposes Only" statement in cell I4 on the Att J- 3 System Pricing Tab is in reference to the estimated quantities provided that will be used for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation as desribed in Section M.II.C.1.0. Section L, Part B,

3.1.1 states "Attachment L-2, Price Attachment, which represents catalog pricing to be attached to the IDIQ as Section J Attachment 3 and Delivery Order 1 pricing" refers to the actual unit prices to be provided by the Offerors. This approach establishes price predictability for budgeting and reduces administrative effort needed by both the Government and contractor to solicit and award delivery orders.

Offerors may assume award of catalog priced items depend on DO1 effort.

11/2/2022

A-17 General

Submitting a response requires a great deal of clarity and additional information from the Government. Once we have this information, it takes time to build the price. The current due date is right before the holiday period. Moving the due date to Jan 31 allows all parties to ensure all the information needed for a low-risk bid is available and worked into a response.

Additionally, Government pre-solicitation guidance informed industry that offerors would be provided 90 days to prepare and deliver the required demonstrations. To properly prepare for the demonstrations and avoid additional costs with a shortened time period we request the extension to the solicitation submittal date.

Request: Extend due date to Jan 31 2023.

SF33 Box 9 28-Oct-22 The 90 day comment was made when a more substantial technical demonstration was contemplated. See response A-7. 11/2/2022

Posted

A-18 CPAR period

Many customers refuse to submit PPQs stating that the CPAR process is supposed to replace PPQs and suffice for evaluating performance. In addition, we do not control when a CPAR is issued and most customers only do them once per year. The 6-month requirement eliminates many possible Past Performance references. Such a narrow timeline unnecessary restricts potential relevant references.

Request: As CPARS are provided on a yearly basis, we request the Government extend the eligible reporting period to within 12 months from the date of issuance of the solicitation as shown in block 5.

RFP Section L, Part B, 2.4 Past Performance and

CPARS

28-Oct-22

The Government will clarify in a forthcoming amendment Section L, Part B, 2.4.1(b): "Past performance contracts with CPARS Reports where the evaluation period ended more than six months prior to the RFP’s release date where contract performance is still ongoing." For example, the solicitation was issued on 5 October 2022. Ongoing contracts with the most recent CPARS evaluation period ending prior to 5 April 2022 shall have PPQ's submitted. The Government will not consider Offeror initiated PPQ's if the most recent CPARS evaluation period is 6 April 2022 or later IAW Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.4.2.

11/2/2022

A-19 Pricing

Has the program anticipated the necessary Government personnel requirements to complete the T&E requirements (CPI, Ready-to-ship evaluation, regression testing, TRRs, conformance inspections FCAs/JFIs, and PCAs, etc.) for 80+ system configurations, 80+ additional stations and 66 system updates (DO 1) in year 3 of the contract?

Attachment L-2 Vol 3 Pricing Attachment 28-Oct-22 Yes. The Government routinely executes this process. 11/2/2022

Posted

A-20 Pricing

Does the Government intend to order 230+ system configurations and 240+ additional stations in years 3 through 5 as indicated in the Att J-3 System Pricing spreadsheet tab? RFP Section L, Part

B, 3.1.1 Price Proposal Instructions

Attachment L-2 Vol 3 Pricing Attachment

28-Oct-22

As stated in note 1 on Attachment L-2: "The delivery order quantities noted reflect a theoretical scenario for efforts that may be awarded via this IDIQ contract." See response to A-16 for additional information on the estimated quantities on this attachment.

11/2/2022

A-21 Pricing

In accordance with SOW [Section 3.3] (pg 33) and Government response [B- 1] where “Offerors need to account for all costs to deliver products in conformance with the specified requirements in the proposed catalog pricing.” There are large unknowns that must be accounted for in firm-fixed pricing for overseas installation work (e.g., travel, site surveys, shipping, storage) over a five year period.

Recommendation: The Government establish a separate CR CLIN for this work. This lowers the risk to the contractor which will be reflected in the price.

IDIQ Base SOW 210023 Sec. 3.3

RFP Section B

28-Oct-22 The recommendation is noted. The Government does not plan to add a cost reimbursement CLIN. 11/2/2022

A-22 General

This is a complex bid that requires upfront financial investments and the performance is full of risk.

Recommendation: The govt should require small businesses to put vehicles in place that will verify financial viability, such as a surety or performance bond.

RFP Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, Volume 3 and Section M Evaluation Factors

28-Oct-22 The recommendation is noted. The Government does not plan to add additional requirements beyond the normal responsibility determination.

11/2/2022

A-23 Proposal Format

RFP Section L, Part A, 2.1 (pg 77) states,“Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than 10 pt font and should contain a grid.”

Question: Please explain how Offerors should include a grid in graphs and tables.

RFP Section L, Part A, 2.1 Electronic Submission of Proposals

28-Oct-22 Grids in graphs provides a means to more easlily associate the data in the graphs to values on the axis.

Grids in tables effectively mean borders around cells.

Posted

A-24 Past Performance

Relevancy Instructions

RFP Section L, Part B, 2.5.4 (pg 88) states, "To enable the Government to perform a comparison of the past performance contract’s product or service similarities to the instant solicitation’s work for each past performance contract, the Offeror shall only provide the following for each contract reference noted in Attachment PP-1 (Contract Summary): 1) conformed contract document; and 2) complete SOW or PWS, and/or complete Performance Specification; and if applicable 3) subcontract agreement." and "Information necessary to substantiate the relevancy of a past performance contract must be clear through a plain reading of the conformed copy of the past performance contract, its Statement of Work, the Performance Work Statement, the Specification, and / or subcontract agreement without further explanation. Offerors shall submit the entire Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specification, and/or subcontract agreement."

Question: To comply with this request for clearly identified relevancy, could the government provide a recommended means to identify relevant work, such as through highlighting text or other means?

RFP Section L, Part B, 2.5.2 Past Performance Compliance

28-Oct-22

Column C on each Tab of the PP-2 file shall contain the specific reference. For example, the specific reference could read as "SOW #1000, Paragraph 3.1, Page 10" or "Contract XXX, Section B, all CLIN values". Offerors may highlight the corresponding paragraph in the SOW, contract, etc. but it is not required to do so.

11/2/2022

A-25 Past Performance

Relevancy Instructions

RFP Section L, Part B, 2.5.4 (pg 89) states, "An Offerors’ proposal will be considered as noncompliant when the Offeror submits a past performance proposal that repeatedly fails to provide specific, pinpointed pages and paragraphs for the past performance Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, the Specification and/or subcontract agreement, or fails to submit the fully executed conformed past performance contract and its Statement of Work, the Performance Work Statement, the Specification and / or the subcontract agreement. "

Question: Please confirm that Offerors are expected to attach each of these documents - a fully executed contract and SOW/PWS, the specification, and/or the subcontract agreement. Are these items to be included in our response, as part of and in addition to, Past Performance Contract Data (PP- 2)? Are these items excluded from the volume page count?

RFP Section L, Part B, 2.5.4 Past Performance Compliance

28-Oct-22

As per Section L, Table G-2, and Section L, Part B, 2.5.1, Annex A should contain the Supporting Documentation for Past Performance. It is understood that not all past performance contract references will include each of the referenced documents. As per Section L, Part B, 2.5.2, offerors shall only provide the following for each contract reference noted in Attachment PP-1 (Contract Summary): 1) conformed contract document; and 2) complete SOW or PWS, and/or complete Performance Specification; and if applicable 3) subcontract agreement. As per Section L, Table G-2, Annex A does not have a maximum page count.

11/2/2022

A-26 Proposal Content and Volumes

Table G-2 (pg 78) Volume 2 Past Performance shows maximum page count of 10 pages.

Question: What is included in the 10 pages? What is excluded from the page count?

RFP Section L, Part A, 3.0, Table G-2 28-Oct-22

As per Section L, Table G-2, the past performance volume is comprised of a single file for PP-1, a single file for PP-2, and a maximum 10 pages to provide all other solicitation requirements within Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.0 and its subparagraphs.

The 10 pages may include but not be limited to information that may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, and / or 2.6.3.

Posted

A-27 Ownship Demo Will the government be testing the ability to create models and also verifying the models that have been created through real time simulation observations or model wizard data reports?

N6134022R0036 Solicitation 1.1.1 31-Oct-22 The extent of the evaluation is as specified in Section M, Part 2, Section A, paragraph 1.1 and section 1.1.1. 11/8/2022

A-28 Ownship Physics Demonstration

Are we required to deliver only the ship hydrodynamic modeling tools or do we need to deliver the simulation software so the government can test the ship dynamic models created by the tools as well?

N6134022R0036, Solicitation Section L, Part B, 1.1.1 31-Oct-22

This depends on the Offerors proposed technology and technical approach. Offerors must provide what is necessary:

a) to perform the technology demonstration specified in section L.

b) for the Government to perform the evaluations specified in section M.

11/8/2022

Posted

B-1 Materials

The SOW states that the contractor shall "analyze, design, document, develop, fabricate, integrate, deliver, install, verify, and validate NSST Baseline 2 that meets requirements in Specification PRF 210025." The PRF states the system shall have and provides a list of components. Is it the intent of the government to reuse the on site equipment or receive new components for all items identified in the list PRF 210025.

DO 01 SOW 3.2.1.1 25-Oct-22

Reuse of software is optional. The Government recommends optimal reuse of hardware. Acceptance will be based on conformance to PRF 210025.

8-Nov-22

B-2 CDRLS

The DO 01 SOW states "The contractor shall prepare the Software Product Design (SPD) and the Software Version Description (SVD) IAW the CDRLs. The contractor shall incorporate the SPD and SVD into the Technical Data Package (TDP)." The CDRL's are not identified in the DO1 SOW document and are not included in the CdRL attachment for DO 01. Is it the intent of the government that all Base contract A CDRL's are required for DO 01?

DO 01 SOW 3.2.1.1.1 27-Oct-22 Yes. All Exhibit A CDRLs on the base contract apply to DO1.

A001 thru A003 are referenced by the DO1 SOW (para. 3.2.8.1 & 3.2.8.5). A005 thru A008 are referenced by the Base SOW (para. 3.1.12.1, 3.1.14.2, & 3.1.15.1.1) in section 3.1 which is applicable to all delivery orders. A004 and A009 are established under the DO1 SOW (para. 3.2.1.1.2 & 3.2.2.6.1.1) and subsequently maintained under the Base SOW (section 3.1.12.4)

8-Nov-22

B-3 Yokosuka Site

The SOW states that "The contractor shall reuse components from the legacy NSST -5A system that are transportable" As this is a directed reuse, please provide the BOM for the materials that are reusable as there is no planned site survey prior to the Option being priced as part of DO 01.

DO 01 SOW 3.2.1.2 31-Oct-22 The Government is investigating the release of a BOM or equivalent information.

8-Nov-22

B-4 Logistics Guidance Conference

The SOW states that that contractor shall review the PISC requirements to ensure the contractor understands the data inputs for the TSSPD however the base DO 01 contract does not provide the level of hardware for a full sparing programs as the systems at these sites will receive a software baseline update. Does the government intend to reduce this requirement to only apply at the Yokosuka site where new hardware will be delivered as identified at the industry day event?

DO 01 SOW 3.2.7.1

31-Oct-22

Offerors may assume that PISC only applies to new/added components. Existing components procured on a separate contract are exempt.

8-Nov-22

B-5 TMIGC

The SOW states that the TMIGC conference will be held in conjunction with the PAC. Is it the intent that the conference will essentially be a break out session from the larger group and therefore can be streamlined as part of this proposal process?

DO 01 SOW 3.2.7.3

31-Oct-22 The intent of this requirement is for the TMICG to be performed as a break out session. 8-Nov-22

Posted

B-6 NPE

The SOW states the Navy Preliminary Evaluation (NPE) will perform evaluations throughout the development which the contractor shall coordinate prior to the Contractor Preliminary Inspection. Is it the intent to have a monthly, quarterly, biannual schedule for this NPE that will need to be planned by the contractor? The scheduling of the time and setting aside the system outside of development will require resources that will vary based on the frequency of these events prior to CPI.

DO 01 SOW

3.2.8.14.1

31-Oct-22 A NPE can be requested by the contractor at any time to solicit feedback and assess progress. They are intentionally lacking admin and rigor to allow for fast and frequent execution in-stride with development with minimal effort. Scheduling depends on when products become operational and it is a contractor's prerogative to perform smaller more frequent NPEs or larger less frequent NPEs.

8-Nov-22

B-7 NPE

Will the government NTSL lab be the host center for validating software for the NPE events or will this need to be conducted at the contractors facility and test lab?

DO 01 SOW

3.2.8.14.1

31-Oct-22 The contractor may select the location for the NPE to be held.

The NTSL will be made available for NPEs if desired. 8-Nov-22

B-8 TRR

The SOW states "The contractor shall conduct a TRR prior to each GPI and JFI. " In section 3.2.8.14.4.1 TRR entry criteria stated that If GPI is required then GPI has been completed. This appears to assume for entry that GPI was already completed. Is it the intent in fact to state that a TRR is completed after CPI, prior to GPI, then a second TRR prior to JFI?

DO 01 SOW

3.2.8.14.4

31-Oct-22 This language will be corrected. Anticipated change will be a replacement of "If a GPI is required," with "If a TRR is evaluating test readiness for a JFI,"

8-Nov-22

B-9 Will the government NTSL be available at all working hours or is there a limitation of availability during the performance of the contract?

31-Oct-22 The NTSL will be available during working hours with advanced notice. The NTSL may be used for tasks directly related to the delivery of a product to the Government (Examples: Delivery of modifications to PRF 3.1.11.9 devices & performance of GPI and the immediately preceding CPI). The NTSL may not be used as an alternative work site or a development lab. The Government is the primary user of the NTSL and other contractors will be performing tasks for the Government in the NTSL. There may be times when access is limited due to other activities, however contractual requirements that explicitly reference the NTSL will be given priority.

8-Nov-22

B-10 GPI

The SOW states that GPI will be conducted at the NTSL using NTSL test articles and NTSL developmental seats. Is it the intent of the Government to only conduct GPI at the test site and then field at each location? And verify at the JFI?

DO 01 SOW

3.2.8.14.5.1.1

31-Oct-22 After a baseline is established through the execution of GPI using the NTSL, products being delivered to sites using that baseline will undergo CPI, Ready-to-ship evaluation, TRR, & JFI. JFI is not required in-plant and the NTSL is considered in-plant.

8-Nov-22

Posted

B-11 PIO

Buy Through the Prime (BTTP) The SOW states that when required PIO will be used, however there are no identified PIO in DO 01. Does the government intend to include PIO in DO 01?

DO 01 SOW 3.2.9.3

31-Oct-22 If required, a PIO CLIN will be added to the Delivery Order.

Limitations of the contract writing system do not allow for an unfunded CLIN that may be executed at a future time.

8-Nov-22

B-12 ILSP

The DO 1 SOW states that the contractor shall establish and maintain an Integrated Logistics Support Program. DO 01 does not include a services CLIN in the pricing template. Is it the intent to have a follow on services support beyond the 1 year warranty?

DO 01 SOW 3.2.9

31-Oct-22 The ILSP is limited to the specified work in section 3.2.9 for the specified deliveries in section 3.2.1. Additional ILSP activities will be separately solicited as needed. 8-Nov-22

B-13 DMSMS

As the materials for the NSST systems are in place for the preponderance of the locations is it the intent of the Government to only include these requirements for the Yokosuka site?

3.2.9.4 31-Oct-22 Offerors may assume this only applies to new and added components. Existing components procured under another contract are exempt.

8-Nov-22

B-14 Legacy COTS Documentation

The SOW states that the contractor shall "validate and update COTS documentation contained in the legacy NSST IETM" Is it the intent to have the NSST contractor rewrite the COTS manuals which technical data are not owned by the government or is the expectation that the contractor provide new copies of the COTS manuals?

3.2.9.8.9.2

31-Oct-22 Rewriting or editing restricted rights COTS documentation is not required. Contractors may select the most efficient means to update. Examples: Replace with an alternate version of the OEM's COTS manual, add a supplement, etc.

8-Nov-22

B-15 Base SOW Training Program

The Base SOW states "The contractor shall conduct Instructor/Operator, Maintainer, and Cybersecurity training courses for the required quantity of training days." The DO 01 SOW states in section 3.2.10.1 The contractor shall prepare the Training Program Structure Document (Maintainer Training Course) and Training Program Structure Document (Instructor Training Course) IAW the CDRLs." There are no named CDRL for this document in the base SOW or the DO 01 SOW however the DO 01 SOW includes F001 and F002. There are instructions that a hard copy will be provided for all students in the class. What is the total number of days and total number of participants for each class? Is it the intent that this class will be given at each site 1 time or for each software delivery

3.2.10.1

31-Oct-22

The DO1 SOW and CDRL requires the development of training materials, but the training events are not specified since the Government anticipates soliciting these separately as catalog items. Catalog item training may be added as an additional CLIN under DO1 in which case the hard copy requirement in the CDRL would apply.

8-Nov-22

B-16 Site Surveys

The SOW states the contractor shall perform site surveys to verify the facility is ready to receive the required product. What duration does the team have for the site survey event? Will that be scheduled by the NSST project team or the NSST contractor?

3.2.11

31-Oct-22 There is no defined time for a site survey. The event is intended to allow the contractor to collect whatever information it may need. Site surveys will be coordinated by the IPT.

8-Nov-22

B-17 Cyber Security Training Will there also be a requirement for cyber security training in DO 01? Base SOW 3.3.3.3.1 31-Oct-22 Only if solicited. It is not currently required. 8-Nov-22

Posted

B-18 SOW Approach

The DO approaches states that the Government will provide the CDRLS as required for the DO and other DO documentation. In the DO 01 SOW there are references to Base contract CDRLS which are not identified in the DO 01 SOW. Is it the governments intent then to exclude those base contract CDRLs that were not included in the SOW CDRL attachments as identified in the SOW approach section?

Base SOW 1.3.1

31-Oct-22

Every CDRL is required either through the DO1 SOW or the Base SOW section 3.1. 8-Nov-22

B-19 Catalog approach

Is the catalog pricing intended to persist through the life of the ordering period? With the rate of inflation the risk of FFP is high and therefore may not be in the best interest of the government to mandate 5 year pricing for the catalog

1.3.2

31-Oct-22 Yes, the "Year 1 - Year 5" catalog pricing proposed in Attachment L-2, which will become Attachment J-3 upon award of the contract, corresponds to the 60 month ordering period of the IDIQ.

8-Nov-22

B-20 Cyber Security

There is a significant amount of cyber scope in the Base contract IDIQ however there does not appear to be tasking within the DO 01 SOW to provide those Cyber assessment outside of a statement of cyber security verifications. We would expect that it is the Governments intent to include all Cyber requirements from the base contract as part of DO 01, is that an accurate assumption.

3.1.15

31-Oct-22

See DO1 SOW paragraph 3.1 8-Nov-22

B-21 NSST Technical Data Package

The SOW states that the contractor shall revise existing NSST technical data items. Is it an accurate assumption that the current existing TDP will be provided at or before PAC including all CAD source files, PDAL, and BOMs required by CDRL.

3.2.1.1.2

31-Oct-22 The current contract does not require a TDP. Not all data items may be available at PAC, or they may be available in draft form at PAC. Available data items will be provided. Latest submissions of draft data items can be provided if desired.

8-Nov-22

B-22 Reuse of currently existing HW

Is it correct to assume only legacy NSST-5A system in Yokosuka will be reused ,and the other NSST configuration for Yokosuka will be new deliveries?

DO 1 SOW 3.2.1.2

(SOW 210024)

31-Oct-22 Yes 8-Nov-22

B-23

MOLP

The SOW does not address the Microsoft Office License Program. What is NAWCTSD's position on MOLP for this program? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12

31-Oct-22 Complete systems need to be delivered including necessary licenses. Only on-site reuse of existing NSST licenses is offered. 8-Nov-22

B-24 Software Licenses

For the existing NSST devices, will all license renewals by supported by existing contracts?

IDIQ SOW

3.2.7.6.1.1

31-Oct-22 Offerors may assume that they are not responsible for license renewals needed to support NSST baseline 1 systems. Otherwise see PRF 3.1.1.5

8-Nov-22

B-25 Softare Licenses For existing NSST devices, are current software licenses compatible to current Cyber Security upgrades such as Windows 11?

IDIQ SOW

3.2.7.6.1.1

31-Oct-22 Current OS licenses are for Windows 10. 8-Nov-22

Posted

B-26 Yokosuka Site Licenses

For the Yokosuka devices, what software licenses are being provided as

GFI? DO1 SOW 3.2.1.2

31-Oct-22 Existing NSST-5A licenses will be available for on-site reuse in the NSST-5 8-Nov-22

B-27 System Software

Is there a baseline RTVM, IMS, DR database, and Configuration Management toolset that are expected to be consistent with the legacy systems and legacy contract? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12

31-Oct-22 No. 8-Nov-22

B-28 Human Factors Is there a Human Factors Report for the legacy systems available?

IDIQ SOW 1.4.2.3;

3.2.11

31-Oct-22 No. 8-Nov-22

B-29 Compliance

Is the legacy Software, Hardware, CDRLs, Drawings, and Cyber Security posture compliant with the NSST base SOW and Specification?

IDIQ SOW 3.1.16;

3.1.18.1; 3.2.16.2;

3.3.3

31-Oct-22 The associated contract is still in execution 8-Nov-22

B-30 Data Library Where is the current data library kept and maintained? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12.4 31-Oct-22 Presently on a Government-only share drive. 8-Nov-22

B-31

Data Library How does a contractor gain access to the data library? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12.4

31-Oct-22 Current plans are for a Government managed server at the NTSL (procured separately). The Government will have a designated server manager. The contractor will coordinate with the Government's server manager to check in and check out data.

8-Nov-22

B-32 Data Library What are the standards on duration of storage at contractor's facility? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12.4 31-Oct-22 Until completion of the final delivery order. 8-Nov-22 B-33 Data Library Where is the archive kept for obsolence? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12.4 31-Oct-22 Not specified. On the server but segregated from current data. 8-Nov-22

B-34

Data Library What is the expected frequency and review process for Govt initiated revisions to the data library? IDIQ SOW 3.1.12.4

31-Oct-22 The Government anticipates this will be coincident to use of the data in support of operational trainers. There may also be cases where the Government receives data for work performed on another contract vehicle. The Government does not anticipate performing frequent or regular reviews outside of submissions of data to the Government.

8-Nov-22

B-35 Cyber Security Do legacy NSST facilities and devices have an authorization to operate

(ATO)? IDIQ SOW 3.1.15

31-Oct-22 ATOs are in progress 8-Nov-22

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response Posted

C-1

Ownship Model Requirements-- Tuning by hull number

Some of the sea trial data provided is for different hull numbers within the same class of ship. Does the Government wish to have each individual hull number tuned separately or just one tuning per class of ship called out in PRF section 3.1.7.2?

PRF 210025 3.1.7.2

page 43 21-Oct-22

Part of the task is demonstrating the generation of a single ship class model using data from sea trial data collected from different hull numbers in the ship class. 11/2/2022

C-2 Performance Match

The PRF states "Simulation performance shall match real world data within a 5% error unless the contractor submits and the Government accepts a deviation justification." It should be noted that some of the data points on the graphs have values close to zero, which means that a 5% error tolerance may be unachievable. Instead of writing a deviation justification for each value close to zero, would the government consider a fixed error tolerance band in addition to the 5% error tolerance band?

PRF 210025 4.3.3 a.

page 74 21-Oct-22

Please provide a reference to the specific data set and values of concern for the Government's review and consideration.

11/2/2022

C-3 DO-1 Yokosuka

Base Fire Requirements

Please provide base requirements for Yokosuka for the following:

1. Plenum Rated Cables

2. Wireways

3. Fire Suprresion

4. Shielding

Industry Day 10/26/2022

These are generally derived requirements. The system needs to meet the performance requirements in the environment in which it is installed. (REF: DO1 SOW 3.2.2.1.1, PRF 3.3.4) 11/2/2022

C-4 Desktop Ship Control Console

Does functionally compatible mean that it must support every available input across all of the ownships?

Section 3.1.3.5.12.2 (pg 19) 28-Oct-22 DSCC is not required to provide physical input interfaces that are unique to the SCS-GOV console or IBNS console. 11/2/2022

C-5 Remote Optical Sight (ROS)

Do the orientation cutouts need to be configurable at runtime or only prior to an exercise?

Section 3.1.3.10 (pg

24) 28-Oct-22 Not specified. Both approaches are acceptable. 11/2/2022

C-6 Validation of Simulation and Ownship Models

Requirement states "Deviations from real world data and contractor generated simulation design models will be at the discretion of the Government".

Please verify deviation data will be provided to the contractor for Systems Requirements Definition (DO-1 SOW Section 3.2.2.1).

Section 4.3.3.2 (pg 74)

28-Oct-22

No. SOW 3.2.2.1 is a pre-design process. Determination for the need to deviate will be determined during the onwship model validation in consultation with U.S. Navy Subject Matter Experts.

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response

C-7

Training device software

Requirement states "Software modified to meet the requirements herein shall be classified as noncommercial software".

Please clarify the Government's position is " modifications funded by the contract shall be classified as noncommercial software" and does not apply to software funded outside the contract.

Section 3.3.11.3 (pg 69)

28-Oct-22

IAW DFARS 252.227-7014, noncommercial computer software means software that does not qualify as commercial computer software as defined in (a)(1) of this clause. The requirements of this contract are uniquely Government and noncommercial in nature. Any modification made to an Offeror’s vendor specific commercial computer software that is intended to meet a requirement of this contract and funded by the resulting contract would not meet the definition of minor modification as stated in (a)(1)(iv) of DFARS 252.227-7014 and defined at FAR 2.101.

Therefore, an Offeror’s vendor specific commercial software modified to meet the uniquely Government requirements of this solicitation would be classified and delivered under DFARS 252.227-7014.

11/2/2022

C-8

Maintenance concept

Specification states "If the Government determines a delivered device and associated data are inadequate for COMS maintenance, shortfalls identified within one (1) year after device final acceptance shall be corrected".

Please clarify how "indadequate" is determined once the Government has performed requisite inspections (PRF 3.3.12.1.5), conducted a Maintainability Assessment (PRF 4.3.9.3), verified the system meets the requirements and has accepted the system.

Section 3.3.12.1.1 (pg 70)

28-Oct-22

This provides the contractor the opportunity to correct oversights missed by the contractor's quality assurance program and also provides a statue of limitations. Inadequate depends on the maintenance function but generally means the maintenance task cannot be successfully completed due to a shortfall in the device or data. Examples: If the maintenance function is executing a maintenance procedure and the procedure is not executable as written, then the maintenance procedure is inadequate. If the maintenance action is replacing a failed part and the maintenance documentation has wrong or missing information needed to order a replacement part, then the part data is inadequate.

Shortfalls that do not prevent a successful maintenance task completion (typos, formatting, maintainer preferences, etc.)

would not be considered inadequacies.

11/2/2022

C-9 Radar Simulation Software

Would the government confirm the GFS will include SPS-73, SPS-67, SPQ- 9B, SPS-73. SPA-25H, Bridge Master E, and CIC type radar simulations? PRF 3.1.3.8 31-Oct-22

Yes, the Government confirms the GFS includes the listed simulations. 11/8/2022

C-10 Radar Simulation Software

Which of the following radar simulation will be provided as GFS SPS-73, SPS-67, SPQ-9B, SPS-73. SPA-25H, Bridge Master E, and CIC type radar? PRF 3.1.3.8 31-Oct-22

The GFS will include all of the listed radar simulations.

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response

C-11 Reused of current system hardware

For the site specifications listed in PRF 3.1.11, is it correct to assume we need to reuse the currently fielded hardware? PRF 3.1.11 31-Oct-22

Hardware will be made available for reuse. The Government recommends optimal reuse of hardware, but reuse is not mandated. Offerors may make changes to the hardware baseline, as needed, to satisfy the full scope of requirements.

11/8/2022

C-12 ECDIS and VMS

Section 3.1.3.7 states ‘NSST systems shall have every active version of tactical ECDIS software with the exception of ECDIS versions released prior to VMS version 9.5’. Existing NSST VMS stations are running v9.5.2. What are considered current active VMS versions? How is the bidder expected to handle ‘every active version’ moving into the future?

Will future VMS updates be handled by the government? PRF 3.1.3.7 31-Oct-22

VMS 9.5 is the only VMS version required. Navy ECDIS, the follow-on to VMS, is currently being delivered to the fleet and multiple versions are anticipated over time. The system needs the functionality to select and launch an indeterminate number of Navy ECDIS versions. The install media will be provided by the Government for incorporation into the NSST baseline as each version of Navy ECDIS becomes available. Incorporation of Navy ECDIS versions that become available after the start of NSST baseline 2 conformance testing (i.e. GPI) will be handled by the Government or through follow-on contract actions that update the baseline.

11/8/2022

C-13 Radar Simulation Software

Section 3.1.3.8.b states “The NSST systems shall have the following functional radar GUI types utilizing Government Furnished Software (GFS).” It then lists four different radar types [SPS-73, SPA-25H, Bridge Master E, CIC type radar]. Are all four radar types supported by GFS? PRF 3.1.3.8.b 31-Oct-22

SPS-73 and SPA-25H are presently available. Bridge Master E is available but requires updates before it's ready for integration.

The CIC type radar is planned for future work. If the CIC type radar is not made available by the Government, the contractor will not be responsible for its delivery in NSST baseline 2.

11/8/2022

C-14 Radar Simulation Software

Section 3.1.3.8.b.4 states “CIC type radar”. What is this radar type?

Manufacturer/model? Can the Government provide documentation for this radar type? PRF 3.1.3.8.b.4 31-Oct-22

The Government is evaluating a couple candidate solutions and has not made a decision at this time. Offerors may assume that the software interface of the "CIC type radar" is not substantially different than the SPS-73, SPA-25H, and Bridge Master E.

11/8/2022

C-15 Reused of current system hardware

The PRF calls for an NSST-6, NSST-5, and NSST-4 for the Yokosuka site, are all of these current deliveries as part of the current contract? Is the hardware for NSST-5A configuration that is under the current contract meant to be used to create these other configurations?

PRF 3.1.11.3 31-Oct-22 There is no current contract requiring a delivery of a NSST-4 or a NSST-6 to Yokosuka. Please see DO1 SOW 3.2.1.2. 11/8/2022

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response

C-16 Radar Simulation Software

Can the government provide detailed information regarding the GFS radar GUI, including who is the original manufacturer/developer, is there an available SDK or interface description, or general details of the scope and functionality available in this GFS?

PRF 3.1.3.8 31-Oct-22

The GFS radar is a product of the NAWCTSD TechRAT Lab.

The Government is experienced at adapting the GFS radar interface to a variety of training systems. SSDD 4.4.1.2 provides the best currently available data for the current interface implementation. This data has not been updated since design or validated. The Government is investigating providing some operator manuals for additional context.

11/8/2022

C-17 VMS

Licenses/reusability

Do existing Baseline 1 VMS Licenses meet the VMS standards in PRF? If so, will those licenses be provided as GFS at time of award?

PRF 3.1.3.5, PRF 3.1.3.

31-Oct-22

The licensed VMS software can meet these requirements if properly configured and stimulated. Existing VMS software licenses will be available for reuse at their existing locations.

They will not be provided at award since they are needed to keep active training systems operational.

11/8/2022

C-18

GFS

What programming language is the SCS-GOV GUI for Nimitiz, Wasp, American, Whidbey Island, Harper’s Ferry and San Antonio classes? Will the source code be provided ? Are there any APIs or an SDK that has been developed. PRF 3.1.3.5.12.4

31-Oct-22

SCS-GOV uses a combination of tactical software provided in executable form by NSWCPD. Source code for tactical software will not be provided. It is presently integrated through the API in SSDD 4.1.3.1.16, but can be adapted to alternative APIs by the Government. There are additional SCS-GOV related GUIs (see SSDD 4.4.4.4.6.8 for available data). This data has not been updated since design or validated. Source code for non-tactical software related to SCS-GOV may become available in the future.

11/8/2022

C-19

GFS

What programming language is the IBNS (Arleigh Burke) coded in? Will the source code be provided? Are there any APIs or an SDK that has been developed. PRF 3..3.5.12.6

31-Oct-22 See SSDD 4.4.4.4.6.9 for available data. This data has not been updated since design or validated. Source code may become available in the future.

11/8/2022

C-20 CIC Console Functionality

Is there a functional difference between the Bright Bridge and the CIC consoles?

PRF 3.1.3.8.3,

3.1.3.4.5.7, 3.1.4.1.5.10

31-Oct-22 No. Name differences are based on location (bridge vs CIC) not functionality. 11/8/2022

C-21 SPA 25H Console Functionality

Is it expected that the SPA 25H display all four Radars, or have the capability to do so? PRF 3.1.3.8.2 31-Oct-22 SPA-25H is a radar repeater (i.e. GUI) that displays SPS-73, SPS-

67, and SPQ-9B radar data. 11/8/2022

C-22

Entity Clarification Do all entity and target models to be delivered require installed weapons and damage capabilities?

PRF 3.1.3.2.14.1,

3.1.3.2.14.3

31-Oct-22 The weapons and damage effects should be appropriate to the entity type. Examples: a bridge here sign does not need weapons or damage effects, an aircraft does not need sinking effects, etc.

Item # Subject Question/Comment/Request/Recommendation Reference(s) Date Government Response Date Response

C-23 Console Functionality

What software is typically used on the CIC console station? What sensor inputs does it have? Will the CIC Tactical software be supplied as GFS? PRF 3.1.4.1.5.10

31-Oct-22

Current required capability is to display and operate student interfaces IAW PRF 3.1.4.2.1.