Attachment 3_RSC 24R4016 Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6449824R4016
About this file
This document contains a set of questions and answers related to a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command for the Repair Station Console (RSC) Solicitation N6449824R4016. The RFP seeks proposals for the design and development of the RSC hardware, including a 19" (minimum) display, panel PC, keyboard and trackball, and other components. Key details include:
The government will not provide a Technical Data Package from prior contracts, as this is not a build-to-print effort. Offerors are required to design the hardware based on the provided performance specifications. The government has removed a clause that provided a competitive advantage to the incumbent. The solicitation has a 2-week proposal due date extension. The estimated award date is January 2025. The government clarified requirements related to software, display aspect ratios, font sizes, proposal formatting, and other technical details. Offerors are expected to provide a hardened Windows 11 operating system and UPS monitoring solution, but not develop the full RSC software.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Question Source Document | ||||
| (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) | Page # and paragraph heading # | Question: | Answer: | ||
| 1 | RFP | Confirming that all the SOW attachments provided are technical specification and drawings? Are there any additional drawings to be provided? | The attachments provided on the RFP are all accurate at this time. There are no additional attachments or drawings. | ||
| 2 | RFP | Could the Government confirm whether the TDP from previous contracts was delivered as stipulated? If so, we would appreciate insights into why the Government might face challenges in providing this TDP to qualified bidders for the current solicitation. | A TDP from previous contracts was delivered as stimulated on the previous contract, however, the current Solicitation and requirements have updates/changes that were not on the previous contract. Due to new requirements and new product specification, the RFP Statement of Work and Attachments outline the necessary requirements needed for a proposal. | ||
| 3 | RFP | If the TDP is currently unavailable, could the Government provide further information on the reasons for its absence, despite being a specified deliverable in prior contracts? | A TDP is not provided because current Solicitation and requirements have updates/changes that were not on the previous contract. Due to new requirements and new product specification, and the fact that this is not a build-to print effort, the RFP Statement of Work and Attachments outline the necessary requirements needed for a proposal. | ||
| 4 | RFP | With the inclusion of design and qualification tasks, alongside the Waiver of First Article Requirements clause, does the Government recognize the potential competitive advantage this situation may afford the incumbent? How does the Government plan to ensure fair and equitable competition under these circumstances? | Upon review of this clause M-209-H001 the Government has removed this clause from the Solicitation. Please see attached revised Conformed Copy Amendment 4. | ||
| 5 | RFP | Would the Government consider re-evaluating this solicitation as a Build-to-Print effort by leveraging the previously paid-for TDP? This approach would promote a level playing field and foster broader competition among potential contractors. | No, this is an open solicitation, not a build-to-print effort. | ||
| 6 | RFP | Requesting a 2 – week proposal due date extension in order to have time to make updates pending on timeline that answers are received for all questions | Two-week extension granted. Please see attached Amendment on updated closing date. | ||
| 7 | RFP | Pg. 169, L.1 General Instructions | Per the requirement, Offerors shall propose base year escalation for the time period between the direct labor rate support (payroll date) and the estimated award date provided in F-211-H021 Delivery or Performance (NAVSEA) (MAR 2019). Can the Government provide estimated award date to support consistent and correct pricing data? | The estimated award date for this solicitation is January 2025. | |
| 8 | RFP | Pg. 169, L.1 General Instructions | The proposal instructions do not provide guidance for 1) font size for tables, graphics, does not allow for an 8 1/2 by 11 landscape and does not address potential use of an 11 x 17 graphic. What is the government instruction for tables and graphics? | Please see updated language below and revised in Amendment 4 Section L. |
Font text shall be 12-point Times New Roman, except for:
Graphs, graphics, tables, or charts used to supplement the proposal text shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size.
| 9 | RFP | Pg. 3, Section B. ITEM NO 0001 | Qualification Set states Award through 12 Months, as deliverable from CLIN 22 FAT-NRE CLIN, however the Section F Delivery for CLIN 0001 on page 105 lists 180 days (6 months) after Delivery Order Award. Is Section F Delivery accurate for CLIN 0001? | Section F is delivery timeframe, whereas the CLIN 0001 description identifies the ordering period of the Qualification Set; so anywhere from award to 12 months is when customer side may order that CLIN. The Section F 180 days (6 months) is after order is placed and timeframe for the delivery of FAT results. |
| 10 | Attachment A_RSC4_Performance_Spec. | Paragraph # RSC4PERFSPEC97 | The performance specification requirement RSC4PERFSPEC97 specifies that “Each 19” (minimum) display shall have a 4:3 or 5:4 size ratio. Would the government consider accepting a Larger Display design in the available footprint that had a 16:9 size ratio? This would apply to both the 19” (minimum) Display and the Panel PC Display. | The 16:9 aspect ratio is not an acceptable option for this requirement. |
| 11 | RFP | Does the Repair Station Console currently exist? If so, can the government provide the Technical Data Package (TDP) so that the industry can better understand the current system and assess the requirements for designing possible replacements? | Yes, the Repair Station Console currently exists. A TDP is not provided because current Solicitation and requirements have updates/changes that were not on the previous contract. Due to new requirements and new product specification, and the fact that this is not a build-to-print effort, the RFP Statement of Work and Attachments outline the necessary requirements needed for a proposal. | |
| 12 | RFP | Paragraph 3.1.7.3 | “The Contractor shall design and develop the software architecture in a manner which shall ensure maintainability throughout the development and lifecycle of the software.” Is it the government’s intent that the awardee develop the software architecture for the Repair Station Console? If so, can the government provide the specifications for the current software solution used in the Repair Station Console. | The offeror is not developing the RSC software, but is responsible to provide the hardened OS (Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2024) and the UPS monitoring solution at a minimum. Please reference updated Attachment A SOW Performance Spec_Updated. |
| 13 | RFP | Is it the Government's intent for the contractor to bid the design of both the hardware and software solutions of the Repair Station Console on an FFP basis? | The Performer is designing the RSC Hardware. The performer is not developing the RSC software, but is responsible to provide the hardened OS (Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2024) and the UPS monitoring solution at a minimum. Please reference updated Attachment A SOW Performance Spec_Updated. | |
| 14 | RFP | We request an extension of the proposal submission deadline by an additional 30 days to allow the industry more time to assess the requirements for the Repair Station Console. | The Government has granted a two-week extension for the proposal submission of this RFP. Please see attached Amendment 4 for updated closing date. | |
| 15 | RFP | Pg. 168, L.2 Proposal Format | Offeror requests the minimum font size be 8pt for Tables and Figures used throughout the volumes. | Please see updated language below and revised in Amendment 4 Section L. |
Font text shall be 12-point Times New Roman, except for:
Graphs, graphics, tables, or charts used to supplement the proposal text shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size.
| 16 | RFP | Will the government please provide an estimated program start date for Offeror’s to reference? | The estimated award date for this solicitation is January 2025. | ||
| 17 | Amendments | Will the Government please provide conformed copies of all amendments so Offeror’s have the most up to date SF33? | Yes, please see attached conformed copy of latest amendment 4 posted. | ||
| 18 | RFP | Pg. 171, L.3 | Offeror requests the 6 page count limit for Element 1D of the Technical Approach does not count against the 35 page count limit for the entire volume and instead the new page count limit for Technical Approach be 41 pages. | The total page limit for Volume II Factor 1 Technical Approach has been increased from 35 pages to 41 pages to account for the 6 pages allowed under Element 1D Software Development Plan. Please see updated language for Solicitation Section L.3. | |
| 19 | RFP | Pg. 171, L.3 | Will the Government allow the Offeror to submit the initial SDP and QMS as standalone files as attachments to each respective volume rather than try to paste in as Appendices since they do not count against page count? | The three (3) Page SDP Rationale and three (3) Page Experience Narrative (total of six (6) pages for Element 1D Software Development Plan) shall be provided in Volume II. The initial Software Development Plan may be submitted as either an attachment or appendix. For QMS, this factor (factor 5) already has it's own volume (Volume VI) and therefore all documents shall be submitted under Volume VI. | |
| 20 | Attachment+1+-NSWCPD+SBPCD+RFP+24R4016 | Will the Government please confirm the Offeror is supposed to fill in all cells with Offeror data, and the numbers currently there are just an example? | Yes, numbers currently provided on Attachment 1 SBPCD are there as an example. Offeror's are expected to fill in the cells with Offeror data. | ||
| 21 | RFP | L.3.8 RFP Fill-Ins | Is the Offeror permitted to submit a standalone file for this requirement? | RFP fill ins shall be submitted as part of Volume V (Factor 4 Price), in accordance with updated Solicitation Section L.3.5. | |
| 22 | RFP | SOW 3.1.7.16.24 | There is a reference to "1st Training set" in this SOW requirement but there is no CLIN for training set. Please advise. | Concur, the reference to 1st Training Set is incorrect in the SOW 3.1.7.16.24 . The SOW has been revised to state SHIPSET instead of 1st training set. Please see revised RFP provided via Amendment 4. | |
| 23 | RFP | pg. 13 CLIN 0022 and | |||
| pg. 29 SOW 3.1.7 | Page 13 of Section B indicates that NRE is part of CLIN 0022, however SOW 3.1.7 says the Qualification equipment set CLIN (CLIN 0001) includes the NRE. Please advise. | The Solicitation is correct as is. CLIN 0001 Qualification Equipment Set is for the "set" itself (material line item). The NRE services associated with the Qualification Equipment Set CLIN 0001 fall under CLIN 0022. | |||
| 24 | RFP | pg. 30 SOW 3.1.7.1.3 and | |||
| pg. 174 L3.2.4 Element 1D | Offeror requests the Government please update the language in SOW 3.1.7.1.3 from "The Contractor shall be appraised at a CMMI maturity level three (3) or higher" to "The Contractor shall be appraised at a CMMI maturity level three (3) or equivalent" to align with Section L3.2.4 Element 1D. | The Language in SOW 3.1.7.1.3 has hereby been updated in accordance with Clauses L-227-H002 and L-227-H001 to "The Contractor shall be appraised at a CMMI maturity level three (3) or equivalent." Please refer to revised SOW provided in Amendment 4 Conform Copy. | |||
| 25 | RFP | RSC4PERFSPEC527 | Offeror requests more detail or clarification of the intent of the function for brightness levels for white that overlap for the brightness modes. | It is not required or preferred for displays to have separate luminance ranges for "night" and "day" modes, but if there are separate modes, then they need to overlap. The rationale for the overlap is that as the operator adjusts within one range, the operator would be able to transition between modes without altering the light luminance level, allow flexibility over when the operator has to switch between modes, and to avoid mode changes if possible. |
| 26 | RFP | pg 173, L.3.2.1 ELEMENT 1A – Design Conformance to Requirements | Given the page limit for Volume II, Factor 1, the Offeror requests use of the Attachment A Performance Spec to add columns in the excel to cite basis for design conformance for the associated requirements. And then supply the populated excel file as an attachment for Volume II. | No, Attachment A remains as is, no additional columns shall be added to the excel. | |
| 27 | RFP | Sect. A | Can the Government grant a 2-week extension to 26 Aug 2024? | Two-week extension granted. Please see attached Amendment on updated closing date. | |
| 28 | RFP | Sect. 3.1.6.10 | Can the Government provide the maximum estimated total Shipset/CLIN quantities requiring contractor storage concurrently, and the expected storage duration? | This a indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity requirement, specific quantities are not known at this time and are identified at the order level. | |
| 29 | RFP | Sect. 3.1.6.10.4 | In reference to statement "“The vendor must agree with holding the material and NOT invoicing for it until availability is identified to ship the GFP to a Govt. facility/location.” | ||
| What specific “GFP” is referenced here? Is this contractor assembled RSCs/components produced under the contract, but awaiting shipment for installation? Does the GFP also encompass material which is purchased outside of this contract, and if so, can you provide a description of the material type and approximate space envelope it would occupy in storage? In either case, what is the expected length of time the material will be stored between completion of production and/or receipt form the Government receipt by contractor and invoice? | Storage may be required per CLIN 023. Storage of material line items can be handled in one of two ways: 1) The Contractor must agree with holding the material line item and NOT invoicing for it until availability is identified to ship the material to a Govt. facility/location. (at this point the Contractor still owns the item); or, 2) The Contractor invoices the material line item and it is then converted to GFP and is stored at the Contractor's facility. The GFP must be tracked in accordance with the GFP clauses. Please refer to SOW Section 3.1.6.10.4 for updated language. | ||||
| 30 | RFP | 3.1.7.23.1 | In reference to Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) Checklists. | ||
| The paragraph is not clear whether the application of STIGs to the system (including the CPU operating system) will be performed by the Government or by the contractor. The subsequent paragraph/requirements indicate the contractor is responsible to determine the appropriate STIG checklists and document and test them via an IA DRIP, IATP, and IATR, but the responsibility for actual application on the system is not defined. Is the Government responsible for STIG application, and, in the case of the Window Operating System (OS), is the contractor only responsible to supply the COTS OS/license? | The government is not responsible the first time of STIG application. The awardee is responsible of SITG Application 30 days after CDR. After delivery of the product to the Government is when the Government is responsible for maintaining STIG Application. Refer to SOW 3.1.7.23.2. | ||||
| 31 | RFP | General | There are references to MIL-STD-1399-300B which has been canceled and replaced with MIL-STD-300-1. Will these references be updated to the latest requirement? | Yes, please see updated Amendment 4 with updated Statement of Work 2.1.36, 3.1.7.16.19, 3.1.7.16.20, 3.1.7.16.21, 3.1.7.16.22, and 3.1.7.16.23 to reference MIL-STD-1399-300-1. Reference to MIL-STD-1399-300B is removed. | |
| 32 | RFP | General | Is the Contractor expected to develop any software as part of the performer scope of work above and beyond the non-developmental software (Operating system, drivers, and similar) which are called out in the requirements? | The performer is not developing the RSC software, but is responsible to provide the hardened OS (Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2024) and the UPS monitoring solution at a minimum. | |
| 33 | RFP | General | There are CDRL deliverables required under Sections 3.2, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 that do not have a corresponding priced CLIN or NTE CLIN. Provide guidance on the process for pricing these CDRLs within the proposal response format. | CDRLs fall under CLIN 0025, which is Not Separately Priced (NSP). If there are costs associated with CDRLs, those costs should be incorporated into a roll up costs of whichever CLINs the Offeror has pricing associated with CDRLs. | |
| 34 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC464 | |||
| In reference to: MTTR shall be for RSC Panel PC (including computer, power system, UPS, speaker, internal DVD drive, and keyboard/trackball) – 35 minutes. | |||||
| MTTR is referenced for an internal DVD drive, but there is no other requirement specifically defining a DVD specification. Is an internal DVD drive required? | An internal DVD drive is not required, this has been removed on the Attachment A Performance Specification. Please reference updated Attachment A SOW Performance Specs. | ||||
| 35 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC143 |
3.10 Keyboard and Integrated Trackball Device
| Is the Keyboard/Trackball Assembly required to interface with RSC via a single USB cable or is it acceptable to interface via 2x USB cables (current UCC is 2x USB for KB and Mouse)? | The Keyboard/trackball is an integrated device and shall be connected to the computer via 1 USB cable. | ||||
| 36 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC246 | |||
| 4.1.5 Keyboard/Trackball Device | Are the keyboard envelope dimensions a hard requirement? | Yes, keyboard envelope dimensions are a hard requirement. | |||
| 37 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC143 | |||
| 3.10 Keyboard and Integrated Trackball Device | Performance Spec is silent on trackball backlight. Does the Trackball require backlighting? If so, does it also require dimming control or is dimming control only required for the keyboard keys? | The Trackball does not require backlighting. There is no technical issue with having backlighting, however, if there is backlighting it shall be dimmable. | |||
| 38 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC61 | |||
| 3.4 Panel PC Speaker | Can the frequency range of the "bell, horn, siren, and buzzer sounds" be provided to ensure 90dBA requirement is adequately met? | The audio files will be provided as GFP/GFI in post award phase. | |||
| 39 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC66 | |||
| The RSC Panel PC volume shall be mutable. | Is a "Mute" button required or can this requirement be met with a volume decrease button that can be manually adjusted to achieve “mute”? | This requirement can be met with a volume decrease button that can manually be adjusted to achieve "mute." | |||
| 40 | Performance Spec | Table 3 | |||
| Shipboard Cable Lengths | Unclear as to the requirements associated with Table 3 of the Performance spec. Are contractors expected to provide shipboard cable materials for everything in Table 3 not marked by "N/A"? | Yes, contractors are expected to provide shipboard cable materials for everything in Table 3 not marked by "N/A". | |||
| 41 | Performance Spec | RSC4PERFSPEC204 | |||
| The License key shall support 32 Bit and 64 Bit versions of the latest release of Windows IoT Enterprise LTSC | Microsoft stopped providing 32-bit releases of IoT Enterprise LTSC after version 1809 and most drivers no longer provide 32-bit versions. Are these units expected to run a 32-bit OS? | This was an error, the OS Shall be 64-bit Windows 11 loT Enterprise LTSC 2024. Please see revised Attachment A SOW Performance Spec_Updated. | |||
| 42 | RFP | SOW 3.1.7.23.7 | SOW 3.1.7.23.7 calls out two SOW references that are not present in the solicitation, 3.1.8.24.5 and 3.1.8.24.6. Please advise. | SOW 3.1.7.23.7 has been updated to correct references of 3.1.7.23.5 and 3.1.7.23.6, please see revised SOW provided in Amendment 4. | |
| 43 | RFP | SOW 10 Counterfeit Material Prevention | Will the Government please correct the SOW number for the subsections for section 10 Counterfeit Material Prevention? | The SOW number of subsections have been updated for Section 10 Counterfeit Material Prevention. Please reference Amendment 4 Conformed Copy updates. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .