N66604-14-R-1120_Amendment_5.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See page 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Oct-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N66604-14-R-1120

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Aug-2014

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

28-Oct-2014

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

ALISON C. WICKS, CODE 0223

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N66604-14-R-1120

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:

AMENDMENT 5

The purpose of Amendment 0005 is to respond to questions received from industry.

Questions 1-66 addressed in previous amendments.

Question 67: Page 1 of the Amendment 0004 conformed RFP states that the new due date is 10 November 2014, yet Page 3 of the amendment states that the new RFP closing date is November 7. Which date is correct?

Answer 67: The proposal due date is Monday, November 10, 2014 at 2:00PM EST.

Question 68: There is no SF-30 Amendment of Solicitation form included with the Amendment 0004 document.

Will it be sufficient to acknowledge Amendment 0004 on the updated signed SF-33 or will a separate SF-30 for Amendment 0004 be provided for signature and inclusion with the proposal?

Answer 68: It is sufficient to acknowledge Amendment 0004 on the updated SF-33.

Question 69. Were previously customer Past Performance Questionnaires destroyed, requiring re-submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires or will the prior customer Past Performance Questionnaires submission be retained and accepted by the Navy as these haven't changed since the proposal submission?

Answer 69: Previously submitted Past Performance Questionnaires will be retained. However, if new ones are received from the same POC’s, the most recent ones will be considered.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

The following have been modified:

AMENDMENT 4

NOTE: A conformed copy of the solicitation is provided, rather than just the change pages, to provide clarity of the complete amended requirement.

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend the RFP closing date to 2:00PM EST on Monday, November 10, 2014

2. Revise Clause 52.211-9 Desired and Required Time of Delivery

3. Revise Section L Instructions to Offerors, Section L1 General Information, paragraph L 1.4 RFP Response Requirements table

4. Revise Section L Instructions to Offerors, Section L2 Volume II Technical Proposal, paragraph 2.1 Technology Maturity

5. Revise Section L Instructions to Offerors, Section L2 Volume II Technical Proposal, paragraph 2.2.3Technical Rationale/Substantiation

6. Revise Section L Instructions to Offerors, Section L2 Volume II Technical Proposal, paragraph 2.5.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

7. Revise Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 1 Technology Maturity

8. Revise Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 2 Technical Approach, Subfactor 3 Rationale/Substantiation

9. Revise Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 5 Management Organization & Schedule, Subfactor 2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

10. Revise Clause 52.217-7 Option For Increased Quantity—Seperately Priced Line Item

11. Provide a complete list of the questions received todate and the answers posted to FEDBIZOPPS.

Below is a complete list of the questions and answers posted to FEDBIZOPPS for this solicitation.

Question 1: Is the Rapid Technology Insertion RTI (N6660414R1120) a new requirement?

Answer 1: Yes.

Question 2: Regarding the SOW Addendum 1 and the Table (Table 1: PEO LCS Technology Focus Areas), is there some place that there is more on that Table and the content with regards the areas identified on the ring/pie?

Answer 2: No. The Government determined there is sufficient Rapid Technical Insertion (RTI) background to support submission of a white paper response.

Question 3: Does the white paper require a cost proposal and, if so, where is that identified and defined within the instructions? What is the page allocation for this item?

Answer 3: No cost proposal/estimate is required for the white paper submission.

Question 4: Would a hand-carried CD/DVD delivered to your facility be an acceptable alternative delivery method?

Answer 4: Hand delivery is permitted; however it must be coordinated at least one day in advance and is only available between the hours of 9AM and 3PM Tues, Thursday, or Friday. Additionally, all hand delivered submissions must be accompanied by a CD soft copy.

Question 5: Section L paragraph 1.10 Executive Summary states that "The offeror shall include a Quad Chart using the format shown in Appendix B…" Appendix B was not included in the RFP. Please provide the Quad Chart format referenced.

Answer 5: SECTION L 1.10 VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS HEREBY REVISED TO REMOVE THE

REFERENCE TO APPENDIX B, AS FOLLOWS:

L 1.10 Volume I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary Volume shall be unclassified. The Executive Summary shall summarize the proposed technology improvement, as well as any innovative claims, and the Offeror’s experience, capabilities and past performance in this area. The Offeror shall include a Quad Chart, using Microsoft Office Power-Point compatible formats, showing a graphic of the technology, problem solved or benefits provided, technical approach, and schedule. Title Pages, cover pages, glossaries, tabbed dividers, and table of contents shall not be subject to the page limitations, will not be evaluated, and shall not be numbered. Price information shall be completely omitted from the Executive Summary Volume. The Executive Summary shall not be evaluated.

Question 6: Section L paragraph L paragraph 2.5.3 requires offerors to provide a labor summary for CLINs 1001- 1002, showing the labor mix at various seniority levels for each category. As the RFP does not define "seniority levels", may we assume that distinctions may be drawn between "senior", "mid" and "junior" levels versus using years of service?

Answer 6: YES, HOWEVER, NOTE THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE THE DISTINCTIONS FOR

REASONABLENESS.

Question 7: Section L paragraph 1.0 states that the Government will make a TDP available to Offerors to review for information only. Will the Government provide information as to the system or systems for which the TDP is applicable, and identify the specific documents that are available for review?

Will the Government provide a process for obtaining access to this TDP, assuming that the contractor must review at a Government facility?

Answer 7: THERE IS NO TDP OTHER THAN THAT BEING MADE AVAILABLE AS GFI. SOW

ADDENDUM 2 IDENTIFIES THE GFI AVAILABLE AS WELL AS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE

APPLICABLE SYSTEM(S) FOR THIS RFP.

Question 8: The Government requested, and some offerors submitted white papers in response to RFI request N66604-14-R-1120. Offerors who submitted such white papers received feedback regarding the content of the submittals. Will offerors citation of the Government's evaluation of the white papers in the proposal be considered factual without further proof?

Answer 8: WHITE PAPER FEEDBACK WAS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF HELPING

OFFERORS WITH A DECISION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF A FULL PROPOSAL. THE

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE INCLUSION OF WHITE PAPER FEEDBACK DISCUSSION

IN PROPOSALS.

Question 9: If you did not submit White paper are, are you excluded from submitting proposal?

Answer 9: NO, YOU MAY SUBMIT A PROPOSAL REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU

SUBMITTED A WHITE PAPER.

Question 10: Should Tables L-3 and L-4 be referenced instead of Tables L-1 and L-2?

Answer 10: L-2 IS NOT REFERENCED IN THIS PARAGRAPH. THE REFERENCE TO L-1 SHOULD BE L-3.

Question 11: The following GFI items: LCS Human Systems Integration Plan (HSIP) 20 December 2013 and LCS Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) 10 April 2013 were not provided with the GFI DVD. Was this omission intentional?

Answer 11: AT THE TIME OF SOLICITATION, THESE DOCUMENTS DID NOT HAVE THE

APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT FOR RELEASE WITH THE RFP. THESE DOCUMENTS CAN

NOW BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST, PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

Approval is granted for LIMITED RELEASE of the following PMS 420 technical data as government furnished information (GFI) to U.S. DoD offerors:

a. Human Systems Integration Plan for the Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules Program of 20 Dec 13

b. Littoral Combat Ships Mission Modules Program - ACAT IC Life Cycle Sustainment Plan of 10 Apr 13 Authorization for release of this GFI to non U.S. DoD offerors requires a case by case review by PEO LCS/PMS 501 and a valid international traffic in arms regulation compliant technology assistance agreement to be in place.

Question 12: Escort Mission Module Baseline Component Weights, the weight of the cofferdam is given as 0.6 MT, this is a reduction from 3.6 MT defined in the same table published in the White Paper GFI, is the reduction intentional or a typo and the table should read 3.6 MT for this item?

Answer 12: THE WEIGHT OF THE COFFERDAM IS 0.6 MT.

Question 13: All documents, spreadsheets, databases, or other data submitted must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2007, Microsoft Project 2007, and Adobe Acrobat 9. Would it be acceptable to submit documents in MS Office 2010?

Answer 13: MICROSOFT OFFICE 2010 AND MICROSOFT PROJECT 2010 ARE ACCEPTABLE.

Question 14: Proposals are due by 1400 on October 13, 2014. This is a government holiday. Will there be personnel present on this day to receipt the proposal?

Answer 14: THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE/DATE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 10 NOVEMBER 2014 AT 1400.

Question 15: May BOEs and applicable supporting documents that are required for subcontractor costs be submitted directly to the Government by the subcontractor?

Answer 15: THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRIME OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL.

Question 16:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: N/A Section: Attachment 1, CDRLs

Question: CDRLs F018 - F028 Reference Section SOW paragraph 3.4.6, which does not exist. Please confirm that the paragraph following SOW paragraph 3.4.5.5 beginning with "Technical Data Package (TDP)" is paragraph 3.4.6

Answer 16: CORRECT AS STATED.

Question 17:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: N/A Section: Attachment 1, CDRLs

Question: CDRL G001 references SOW paragraph 3.8, which does not exist. Please confirm that the paragraph following SOW paragraph 3.7 beginning with "If option 9003 is exercised…" is paragraph 3.8

Answer 17: CORRECT AS STATED.

Question 18:

Document Name: RFP Document Date: 14 August 2014 Pages 4 and 34 Section B CLIN 1002, and Paragraph 3.2 Assessment

Question: The statement of work requires that “The Contractor shall adapt and modify the new RTI technology (product, system, hardware and/or software), including material procurement, fabrication and integration of Government Furnished Property (GFP), as applicable), test, evaluate, produce and install, deliver, and test it.” There are conceivably several ways in which the Assessment (EDM) could be defined, for example:

A) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship.

B) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship, plus the unique materials required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-2 configuration ship.

C) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship, plus the all of the equipment required to simultaneously install and operate the technology on an LCS -2 configuration ship (i.e. two shipsets, one for LCS-1 and one for LCS-2) Will the government specify the configuration required for the Assessment (EDM) unit?

Answer 18: THE CONFIGURATION REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT SHOULD SUPPORT INSTALLATION

AND OPERATION ON EITHER LCS VARIANT.

Question 19:

Document Name: RFP Document Date: 14 August 2014 Pages 11-13, and 49 Section B CLINs 5001, 6001, 7001 and Paragraph 3.4 Fielding

Question: The statement of work requires that “The Contractor shall build and deliver the program equipment in accordance with the Specifications and approved drawing package approved in the RTI Phase II scope.” There are conceivably several ways in which a Full Production Unit could be defined, for example:

A) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship.

B) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship, plus the unique materials required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-2 configuration ship.

C) One set of all equipment required to install and operate the Technology on an LCS-1 configuration ship, plus the all of the equipment required to simultaneously install and operate the technology on an LCS -2 configuration ship (i.e. two shipsets, one for LCS-1 and one for LCS-2) Will the government specify the configuration required for the production units?

Answer 19: THE CONFIGURATION REQUIRED FOR PRODUCTION UNITS SHOULD SUPPORT

INSTALLATION AND OPERATION ON EITHER LCS VARIANT.

Question 20:

Document Name: RFP Document Date: 14 August 2014 Section A, General Information Question: We understand that the Navy has been conducting tow cable fairing development and/or testing and trials to simulate/emulate the turbulent wake conditions expected aboard the LCS(s) with the objective of increasing fairing survivability. Will the government provide any data, reports, or lessons learned from this testing or trials to bidders as GFI?

Answer 20: THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROVIDE DATA, REPORTS OR LESSONS LEARNED UNTIL

AFTER AWARD.

Question 21:

Document Name: RFP Document Date: 14 August 2014 RFP SOW Section 3.2.1

Question: In the Statement of Work, section 3.2.1 Environmental Qualification Requirements, the RFP states that the Contractor shall conduct EQT during the Assessment Phase II, with the results to be documented for the Functional Configuration Audit (FCS, para 3.2.5). EQT on large winch and handling systems, including explosive shock and vibration testing at a qualified barge test facility, typically requires considerable schedule time (e.g., preparing and shipping equipment to/from test facilities, setting to work the equipment, scheduling available time slots at a test facility, etc.). In addition, inspection and refurbishment of a test article after barge shock test, even when the test is passed, requires significant time.

Recognizing these facts, will the Government consider allowing the shock test portion of EQT to be conducted (with delivery of Test Report CDRL) in Phase III, following integration and fleet experimentation of the equipment aboard ship?

Answer 21: YES.

Question 22:

Document Name: RFP Document Date: 14 August 2014 RFP Section L Paragraph 2.2.4 LCS Compatibility

Question: The RFP requires that “The Offeror shall provide an SRVM which provides traceability of the proposed PEMP and SEMP performance levels to the LCS Ship and Mission Module environmental requirements, including the analysis/test method and test event that proves compliance for each of the RTI engineering parameters”.

Does this SRVM count towards the page limit for Proposal Volume 2?

Answer 22: THE SRVM COUNTS TOWARDS PAGE LIMIT, HOWEVER IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO

INCLUDE SRVM ENTRIES FOR THE SPECIFIED SEMP AND PEMP PARAMETERS.

Question 23:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 158-161 Section M

Question: Section M identifies that offerors will be evaluated on Technical Merit, and defines a "Strength" (Section M 1.3.1) as an "aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capacity requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. However, Section 1.3.2 defines "Outstanding" as "Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements."

Further, Section M 2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award States under Factor 2, Subfactor 1 that the Government will evaluate "How much improvement is being obtained for the PEMP."

All else being equal, will offerors whose technical approach exceeds the PEMP objective requirement receive higher Technical Approach scores than offeror's whose proposals do not?

Answer 23: A RATING OF GREATER THAN “ACCEPTABLE” WOULD INVOLVE EXCEEDING MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS/APPROACH.

Question 24:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: N/A Section Attachment 1 CDRLs

Question: CDRL G001 References CLIN 9002, which is to be exercised per Section I NLT 60 MAC, and is a redelivery of CDRL's previously delivered during earlier phases of the contract. The DID for CDRL G001 states that the Date of First Submission is "Deliver with TDP, 180 days after completion of 1st Unit Delivery and updated 60 days after each 1st delivery in production option build if options is exercised. If exercised, is the GPR Option, CLINs 9001 - 9003 to be delivered with each production year, or delivered once with the exercise of the final production option?

Answer 24: If Option 9001-9003 is exercised, then subsequent production TDP deliveries would include the same data as it did previously but the restrictive markings will have been removed or modified.

Question 25:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: N/A Section Attachment 1 CDRLs

Question: CDRL G001 cites only Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists, Drawing Updates, but does not cite any of the other CDRLS listed in SOW section 3. Please clarify by CDRL number(s) which specific CDRLs are expected to be re-delivered with the exercise of CLINs 9001 and/or 9003?

Answer 25: For convenience, only a single data deliverable was created, Item G001, to be associated with CLIN 9003 and 9001. The Contractor shall assemble any or all drawings of the TDP for re-delivery under this single deliverable item. Examples of the data components include interface specifications, software code, product drawings, or assembly instructions or other data.

Question 26:

Section L 1.4 (second paragraph below the table) states "Every paragraph, figure, and table shall be numbered;

paragraphs within sections do not need to be numbered". Is it the Government's intent to state that "Every section, figure and table shall be numbered"?

Answer 26: EVERY FIGURE AND TABLE SHALL BE NUMBERED. SECTIONS WITHIN PARAGRAPHS

DO NOT NEED TO BE NUMBERED.

Question 27:

Cost/Price Volume: Is it acceptable to include 11'' X 17" foldouts in the Cost/Price Volume?

Answer 27: FOLDOUTS SHALL BE USED ONLY WHEN NEEDED. EACH FOLDOUT SHALL CONTAIN

PRINTED MATERIAL ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE FOLDOUT. FOLDOUT PAGES SHALL FOLD

ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PARTICULAR VOLUME. FOLDOUTS SHALL FOLD FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

(SIDEWAYS), SHALL NOT EXCEED 11” IN HEIGHT AND SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE (3) FOLDS.

Question 28:

Tables L-1 and L-2: -Does the Government expect hours for "Major Subcontractors", as defined is RFP Section

3.2.14 (10% of total contract price or $700,000 per year, whichever is less), to be included in Tables L-1 and L-2 in the Technical Volume?

Answer 28: YES.

Question 29:

Section L 3.2.4 requests Table L-2 for the CPFF CLIN's 2001, 4001, 4003 and 4005. Should the reference to Table L-2 be Table L-5, since the title of Table L-5 is "Cost Summary, CPFF CLINs"? In Section L 2.5.3, Table L-2 is entitled "Cost Summary by CWBS (CPIF CLINs)" and appears to be for the CPIF CLIN's 1001 and 1002. Should Table L-2 also be included in Section L 3.2.2 along with Table L-1?

Answer 29: REFERENCES TO TABLE L-2 SHOULD BE TABLE L-5 IN L 3.2.4. REFERENCES SHOULD BE

TO TABLE L-3 IN L 3.2.2.

Question 30:

Section L 3.3.2.2 - CLIN's 2001, 4001, 4003 and 4005 are set at a defined number of labor hours to be proposed with no Bill of Material being proposed in these specific CLIN's (all ODCs under separate CLINs) . Can the Government provide clarification on the supporting cost data required in Section 3.3.2.2 for these specific CLINs (2001, 4001, 4003 and 4005)?

Answer 30: THE OFFEROR SHALL PROVIDE ONE BILL OF MATERIAL AND ONE BOE FOR EACH CLIN

IN ACCORDANCE WITH L 3.3.2.2.

Question 31:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 120 Section L

Initial Question: Section L paragraph 2.5.3 requires the offeror to "include a chart showing personnel loading by skill category over time for this program". Does the Government want the offeror to use the maximum quantity for stepladder CLINs for developing this chart?

Answer 31: CLINS 1001 AND 1002 DO NOT INCLUDE STEPLADDER QUANTITIES. PLEASE CLARIFY.

Clarification: Offeror reference should have been page 129. Section L paragraph 2.5.3 does not state that it is applicable to only CLINS 1001 and 1002, therefore the assumption is that it applies to all CLINs. Can the government please clarify the applicability of this section?

Answer 31: THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ALL CPIF AND CPFF CLINS.

Question 32:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 52 Section C 3.5 and Section F

Question: Section C 3.5 RTI TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINMENT AND SUPPORT PRODUCTS (FFP Option, Applicable to CLINs 3001 - 3002) C 3.5.1 States: The Contractor shall:

a) Provide integrated logistics support (ILS) throughout the duration of the contract;

b) Analyze Fleet problems and failures to provide engineering and logistic solutions

The Government is requesting the offeror to bid ILS throughout the duration of the contract, including analysis of fleet problems and failures under this FFP CLIN, which has a period of performance of 12 months (as stated in Section F), during which only the Test Article is fielded. Please clarify the FFP scope desired under the cited paragraphs a) and b), and specifically, the conflict between paragraph C 3.5.1 (a) period of performance “duration of the contract”, and the POP for CLIN 3001 as stated in Section F.

Answer 32: There is a discrepancy in the RFP. Items a and b of section C 3.5 should not be in the FFP scope. The following updates / revisions apply:

Section C 3.4 Reads:

"3.4 FIELDING (RTI Phase IV, FFP OPTIONS) (Applicable to CLINs 3001-3002, 5001-5003, 6001-6003 and 7001-7003)."

Should read:

"3.4 FIELDING (RTI Phase IV, FFP OPTIONS) (Applicable to CLINs 5001-5003, 6001-6003 and 7001-7003)."

Section C 3.5 Reads:

"3.5 RTI TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINMENT AND SUPPORT PRODUCTS (FFP Option, Applicable to CLINs 3001 - 3002)" Is correct and should remain as-is. This is a FFP CLIN, and once the delivered products are approved they have completed the requirements.

3.5.1, Items (a) And (b) are hereby deleted. The revised paragraph shall read as:

"3.5.1 Sustainment and Operational Support Products The Contractor shall develop logistics support and sustainment products to cost effectively support the RTI technology and achieve the warfighters’ peacetime and wartime readiness requirements. The Contractor shall ensure that the system can be cost effectively supported through its life‐cycle, and that the infrastructure elements necessary to the initial fielding and operational support of the system are developed and delivered.

The Contractor shall:

a) (Item Reserved).

b) (Item Reserved).

c) Develop and deliver products to train and certify personnel to operate and maintain the systems.

d) Ensure safety, effectiveness and affordability of operational RTI technology;

e) Develop system maintenance and repair documentation and procedures."

Question 33:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 65 Section C

Question: Section C, Clause HQ C-2-0037 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUL 2000) Paragraph (e) states that " during the performance of this contract and for a period of three years after completion of performance of this contract, the Contractor....shall not furnish to the United States Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor, or as a consultant to a prime contractor or subcontractor, any system, component or services which is the subject of the work to be performed under this contract. This exclusion does not apply to any recompetition for those systems, components or services furnished pursuant to this contract."

Please provide the authority for this three year restriction on any system, component or service which is the subject of the work to be performed. Can you please clarify the applicability of this clause, and specifically the intent of paragraph (e) regarding the offeror's ability to provide systems, components or services which are the subject of the work to be performed under the contract to the government for a period of three years after completion of the contract? For example, does this restriction apply to any systems, components or services previously developed or previously sold or offered for sale by the bidding party and planned to be included by the bidding party in the work to be performed under this contract?

Answer 33: THIS CLAUSE HAS BEEN DELETED.

Question 34:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 36 Section C

Question: Section C 3.2.3 Work Instructions (WIs) states the Contractor shall develop, update, and deliver WIs based on their internal fabrication processes. The DID cited in CDRL B020 for Work Instructions is for "Proposed Critical Manufacturing Process Description", and requires the data delivery to provide an explanation as to why the process should be considered critical or mandatory to the manufacture of the item or part. There is a separate CDRL (F022/F027) for ”Proposed Critical Manufacturing Process Description" which cites the same DID. It is unclear what additional Work Instructions the Government is requesting in CDRL B020.

Please clarify the requirements for CDRL B020, Work Instructions.

Answer 34: The title of the two CDRL items should match. Block 2 of CDRL Item B020 should read "Proposed Critical Manufacturing Process Description". Both of these items shall provide the identification of critical manufacturing process drawings, at the engineering phase and manufacturing phase, although the actual work instructions themselves are delivered with the Developmental Drawings (B013) or Product Drawings (F018) data deliveries."

Question 35:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Page: 75, 129 and 164 Sections F, L 2.5.2 and M Factor 5

Question: Section F table labeled "DESIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE" lists CLIN 0001 (Phase I) at "Not to exceed 5 months after award" and CLIN 1001 - 1004 (Phase II) at "Not to exceed 22 months after option exercise".

If CLIN 1001 - 1004 immediately follow completion of CLIN 0001, the shortest not to exceed duration would be 27 months (5 months plus 22 months) or 2 years and 3 months. The same CLINs listed in Section F table labeled "REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE" provides 38 months (8 months plus 30 months) or 3 years and 2 months to complete those CLINs sequentially.

Section L 2.5.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) states that "The IMS should clearly show how the project scope is phased to meet the RTI requirements of completed testing within 2 years of initial award, ....". Further, Section M Factor 5 Subfactor 2 states "How well the IMS meets RTI project schedule goals, with completed testing within 2 years of initial award,".

Please address the inconsistency between Sections F delivery schedule (27months through 38 months) and the Section L IMS requirement and Section M IMS evaluation criteria (2 years).

Answer 35: SECTION L AND M INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS ARE

INCORRECTLY STATED (PARAGRAPHS L 2.5.2 AND SECTION M FACTOR 5 SUBFACTOR 2

RESPECTIVELY). THE GOVERNMENTS DESIRED SCHEDULE IS FOR COMPLETION OF PHASES I

AND II WITHIN 20 MONTHS. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED SCHEDULE IS FOR COMPLETION OF

PHASES I AND II WITHIN 27 MONTHS.

Question 36:

Document Name/Date: RFP 8/14/14 Pages: 17 and 137 Sections B and L 3.2.2

Question: Note D of Section B specifies the "Maximum Fee of up to 8% of Target Cost". Further, Section L 3.2.2 states "For the Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract lines, the Offeror shall propose a minimum fee of 0 and a maximum fee of no more than 8%." Is it the government's intention that this be the true "maximum fee" after all cost sharing is calculated or does the government intend for the contractor to bid a maximum "target fee" fee of 8%? If the later is the case, is there a "maximum fee" and if so what is it?

Answer 36: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPOSE A MAXIMUM FEE OF NO MORE THAN 8%.

Question 37:

Document Name/Date: RFP Attachment 4: Performance Incentive Plan for the PEO LCS RTI Program Option 1 (Phase 2 Scope) dated 8/8/14 Page: 8

Question: The incentive fee graphics contained In Attachment 4 indicate that there is no financial incentive to exceed the schedule or objective technical requirements. Is it the government's intention to offer no financial incentive to exceed an objective requirement (for example reduce to weight beyond the 25% objective target) which may have significant overall benefit to the LCS as a whole?

Answer 37: REDUCING WEIGHT WOULD BE AN INSTANCE OF PEMP AT OR BELOW OBJECTIVE. SEE

CASE #1.

Question 38: RFP Section L 1.3, Page 136, Small Business Subcontracting Plan: If the Offeror participates in the DoD Test Program prescribed under DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(B), will submittal of its Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan satisfy this requirement? If so, will the test program clauses be substituted for the standard clauses in the final contract award document?

Answer 38: YES. 252.219-7004 WOULD BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT.

Question 39: RFP Section L 2.6: Past Performance: The RFP states that “Offerors that do not have at least three (3) projects listed in CPARS shall provide Past Performance Questionnaires to their customers for completion for up to five contracts…” Should the offeror (or a qualifying subcontractor) only have 1 or 2 CPARS rated relevant contracts, may the Offeror submit the CPARS references for evaluation as well as Past Performance Questionnaires for non CPAR contracts and will both the CPAR references and the Past Performance Questionnaire references be considered as long as the total references are five (5) or less? Or will the Offeror need to also provide Past Performance Questionnaires for the relevant CPAR to customers as well as the non CPAR customers?

Answer 39: BOTH THE CPARS AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE EVALUATED.

AN OFFEROR NEED NOT PROVIDE A PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SAME

CONTRACT IN CPARS.

Question 40: RFP Section L 2.6: Past Performance: If utilizing Past Performance Evaluations using CPARS, it states in (b) that the pages will not be counted against the proposal page count. If past performance references are submitted by subcontractors utilizing CPARS, as stated in (c), will those pages be counted against the proposal page count?

Answer 40: NO.

Question 41: RFP Section L 2.6: Past Performance: For the Past Performance Questionnaire section, Paragraph 3, Offerors questionnaire pages will not be counted against the proposal page count. For Paragraph 4, are Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by subcontractors counted in the total page count of the proposal?

Answer 41: NO

Question 42: RFP Section L 2.6: Past Performance: Past Performance Questionnaire section, Paragraph 1, states that contracts are required to be within the past 5 years. Paragraph 3 states to utilize relevant experience within the past 3 years. Please clarify if the requirement is for 3 or 5 years.

Answer 42: 3 YEARS.

Question 43: RFP Section L 2.6: Past Performance: For subcontractor Past Performance Questionnaire Part IV submissions by customers, should these also be submitted directly to Melissa Ardis as well as Offeror Part IV submittals?

Answer 43: PLEASE NOTE A CHANGE IN ALL PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMISSIONS.

SUBMISSIONS SHALL NOW BE MADE TO ANDREW NAGELHOUT AT andrew.c.nagelhout@navy.mil.

Question 44: RFP, Section L 3.3.5: Should subcontractor proposals contain proprietary financial rate data which cannot be disclosed to the Offeror, may they submit their proprietary data packages directly to the Government or must these sealed packages be submitted by the Offeror with its proposal submission?

Answer 44: SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL SUBMIT SANITIZED COST DATA TO THE PRIME OFFERORS

AND SHALL SUBMIT PROPRIETARY COST DATA DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Question 45: RFP Section M 2.4.1.2 – Evaluation for Engineering Services of the CPFF CLIN’s: Should the reference to Table L-2 be Table L-5? Table L-2 appears to relate to CPIF CLINs.

Answer 45: YES.

Question 46: RFP Section M 2.4.1.6 – Evaluation for Data Rights Options: When evaluating the price including CLIN 9001, what will be added if the Offeror provides a price for CLIN 9003 but not 9001? Will the evaluated price be adjusted by 2% of the value of the max production quantity in the GTEP for CLIN 9001? Also, is the max production quantity equal to 22 (6+8+8) or is it based upon the predetermined quantity that is not disclosed to Offerors.

Answer 46: THE EVALUATED PRICE WILL BE ADJUSTED BY 2% OF THE VALUE OF THE MAX

PRODUCTION QUANTITY IN THE GTEP FOR CLIN 9001. THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY WILL BE

mailto:andrew.c.nagelhout@navy.mil

DETERMINED BASED UPON THE PREDETERMINED UNDISCLOSED QUANTITY USED FOR

EVALUATION.

Question 47: RFP Section L.2.2.3: Could the Navy provide a copy of the NAVSEA Technical Reference Manual that is cited in Section L.2.2.3? Is this the same as the NAVSEA System Engineering Technical Review Manual dated Sep. 2009, that is listed in SOW paragraph 2.6? We could not find either document at http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Organization/NAVSEA%20Instructions.aspx.

Answer 47: THE NAVSEA SETR MANUAL IS AVAILABLE AT THE LINK BELOW http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/NAVSEA%20Technical%20Review%20Manual%2018%20Dec%2009.pdf

Question 48: Section L 2.5.2 and Section M Factor 5, subfactor 2 indicates that the Government desires completion of testing within 2 years. In Section F, the desired delivery schedule is NTE 5 months for Phase I, NTE 22 months for Phase II and NTE 24 months for Phase III. Is it the Government’s intent to exercise all options for Phase II and III at the completion of Phase 1? Is it the Government’s desire to complete testing as within 29 months (5+24) vs the evaluation criteria of testing within 2 years?

Answer 48: IT IS THE GOVERNMENTS INTENT TO EXERCISE PHASE II OPTIONS UPON SUCCESSFUL

AND SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF PHASE I AND PHASE III OPTIONS UPON SUCCESSFUL AND

SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF PHASE II. THE GOVERNMENT’S DESIRE IS TO COMPLETE

PHASES I AND II WITHIN 20 MONTHS. IT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PHASES I AND II WITHIN 27

MONTHS.

Question 49: Reference SOW section 3.7 and EMM specification requirement EMM_SSS_T_1048: CLIN 9001 is for procurement of Data Rights, Production Drawings and associated data but the EMM specification requirement says "The Escort MM shall use only non‐proprietary materials, parts, designs, processes, or procedures to develop the Escort MM". Does the proprietary restriction and CLIN 9001 exclude proprietary claims for COTS parts? Can the Government confirm that the requirement within the EMM system spec relates to non-COTS items and that this requirement only applies to items developed under this effort, not to items that have been developed under non-US DOD funding?

Answer 49: COTS PARTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.

Question 50:Reference Section L 3.2.2 Responses to questions posted on FBO 9/12/14 stated that there are only Technical and Schedule Incentives, however Section L 3.2.2. in RFP Rev 1. still states "The Offeror shall propose the Target Cost, Target Fee, and Target Cost plus Fee for the Cost Plus Incentive Fee CLINs within the Government/Contractor share line boundaries of 50/50. For the Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract lines, the Offeror shall propose a minimum fee of 0 and a maximum fee of no more than 8%." Please clarify the incentive fees structure the Government wants offerors to bid.

Answer 50: THE QUOTED TEXT ABOVE IN SECTION L 3.2.2 HAS BEEN DELETED AND REPLACED BY

THE FOLLOWING:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPOSE A COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (CPIF) STRUCTURE FOR THE

COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE CLINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT J4 - PERFORMANCE

INCENTIVE PLAN.

Question 51:Reference Section CDRLs Question: CDRL F010, Block 8 states "Allow 30 days for Government review of product test documentation prior to presenting the DD-250 for signature." Typically, the DD-250 is prepared shortly following successful completion of acceptance inspection and testing, then reviewed with DCMA, then signed in WAWF. Inserting a 30 day review cycle for CDRL F010 prior to acceptance implies that contract delivery will need to be accelerated to compensate for this CDRL review period. Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to delay product acceptance by at http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Organization/NAVSEA%20Instructions.aspx least 30 days for the submittal and review/approval of the As-Built Configuration List. Typically the As-built list is not an approval CDRL. Please confirm the approval code is correct.

Answer 51: THE BLOCK 8 NOTE IN BLOCK 16 OF CDRL DATA ITEM F010 HAS BEEN REVISED TO THE

FOLLOWING: “ALLOW 5 DAYS FOR GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF PRODUCT TEST DOCUMENTATION

PRIOR TO PRESENTING THE DD-250 FOR SIGNATURE, IF INTERIM/PARTIAL DELIVERIES ARE

PROVIDED TO INFORM THE GOVERNMENT OF TEST PROGRESS.”

Question 52: SOW Paragraph 3.5.6: In reference to CLIN’s 3001 and 3002: It appears that SOW paragraph 3.5.6 Reliability and Maintainability Engineering is to be bid as part of CLIN 3001/3002. CDRL F008 Box A seems to indicate that it belongs under CLIN’s 5003, 6003, 7003 which relate to the production systems and spares. Was the intent to have SOW Paragraph 3.5.6 fall somewhere under SOW Paragraph 3.4 for the production system and spares? If the intent is to have it bid under CLIN’s 3001/3002, can the Government provide an estimated number of systems that would be procured so that we could accurately price the level of effort required for CLIN 3001/3002?

Answer 52: The SOW is edited as follows, paragraph 3.5.6 is hereby renumbered to be 3.4.8, and moved under section 3.4. Each production unit should include an amortized amount for FRACAS efforts during the period of performance up until the delivery of the last production unit ordered on the contract. The SOW paragraph number referenced in CDRL F008 has been changed to 3.4.8 as well.

Question 53:

Document Name/Date RFP/8/14/14 Page # N/A Reference Section CDRLs Question: CDRLs B017, B018 and B019 are not included in the RFP. Is this an intentional omission?

Answer 53: The missing CDRLs have been uploaded.

Question 54: Should RFP Sections A-J be incorporated in their entirety or just those pages with all fill-ins completed?

Answer 54: Only pages that require fill-ins and/or signatures are required to be completed.

Question 55: In Section L, Paragraph L.2.5.3., seventh paragraph, it states:

“The Offeror’s proposal shall include the following statement: ““We attest to the accuracy of the information contained herein and that an agreement has been reached regarding salary, position and work commitment to this project.” signed and dated by both the employee and a company official. At a minimum, for any Key Personnel, and for other individuals the Offeror deems relevant, who do not currently work for the Offeror or major subcontractor, the Offeror shall provide documentary evidence of the individual’s availability to support these requirements (e.g., work agreements, contracts, letters of intent). The Offeror shall provide either excerpts from its Position Description Manual, or details of its qualifications for Labor Categories or Labor Category Descriptions proposed.

This appears to apply to those Key Personnel who are not currently employed by the Offeror or its Major Subcontractors. Does this also apply to current employees?

Answer 55: The quoted statement shall be provided/signed by the employee and a company official for all proposed personnel currently employed by the Offeror or its Major Subcontractors. For other proposed personnel NOT currently employed by the Offeror or its Major Subcontractors, the Offeror shall supply documentary evidence of the individual's availability to support these requirements (e.g., work agreements, contracts, letters of intent).

Question 56: Reference Section: L and M Question: In Section M of the subject RFP The Government states the criteria for evaluation of an offeror's proposal relative to the instant award of a contract, and further states in Section L3 and M, that it may award multiple contracts as a result of this RFP. Section M also states "all, some, or none of the options may be exercised by the Government in its sole discretion". Should more than one contract be awarded, does the Government plan to down-select to one or more offerors in Phases II, III and/or IV? If so, aside from the factors explicitly cited in FAR

17.207 "Exercise of Options" what evaluation criteria does the government intend to use for the down-select(s)?

Answer 56: None. As is most relevant to this question FAR 17.207(c)(3) states "The exercise of the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government's need, price and other factors (see paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section) considered.”

Question 57: SOW Paragraph 3.4.7 SPARES AND INSTALLATION AND CHECK-OUT (INCO) EQUIPMENT asks for “The Contractor shall deliver Spares and Installation and Check-Out (INCO) equipment and parts listed in Section B for the RTI equipment.” Are the Spares limited to INCO Spares only?

Answer 57: No.

Question 58: Unable to locate the following documents in support of Solicitation Number: N66604-14-R-1120.

1) "NAVSEA Systems Engineering Technical Manual" The document number is referenced as "N/A" in the bottom line of the table in Paragraph 2.6 (ref: pg. 27 of the solicitation).

2) "NAVSEA Technical Review Manual" There is no document number referenced in Paragraph 3.2.10.1 (ref:

Pg.41 of the solicitation).

Please provide.

Answer 58: THE NAVSEA SETR MANUAL IS AVAILABLE AT THE LINK BELOW http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/NAVSEA%20Technical%20Review%20Manual%2018%20Dec%2 009.pdf

Question 59:

Page: 73 Section M

Question: Section M Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria for Technology Maturity states that "Proposals will be rated on a “Go / No-Go” basis, the and will be will be considered acceptable for further review only if they meet all of the following criteria", one of which is the offeror's ability to "Show evidence that the technology maturity for the proposed RTI project is sufficient to support successful assessment, integration, and production within two years".

The "two years" is inconsistent with the desired delivery schedule provided in Schedule Section F, which when awarded serially, depicts a schedule of 5 months(Phase I) + 22 months (Phase II) for a total of 27 months, followed by some period (assumed to be overlapping to some degree with Phase II) of Phase II Ship MM Integration and testing. Please clarify the Section M Technology Maturity factor cited above

Answer 59: Section M Factor 1 has been revised from “Show evidence that the technology maturity for the proposed RTI project is sufficient to support successful assessment, integration, and production within two years” to “Show evidence that the technology maturity of the proposed RTI project is sufficient to support the requirements of Phases I and II within 27 months of initial award”

Question 60:

SOW addendum 2, page 2

Question: As depicted in Figure 1 of SOW Addendum 2, receive array group and receive interface group are Government systems. The receive signal from the MFTA is an input to the ASW Mission package and operator displays are part of the ASW Mission Package capability. Please confirm that ASW Sonar operator training for the Sonar displays and overall proficiency of sonar processing is included in the ASW Mission package (SQQ-89) coursework and outside the scope of this RFP.

http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/NAVSEA%20Technical%20Review%20Manual%2018%20Dec%2009.pdf http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/NAVSEA%20Technical%20Review%20Manual%2018%20Dec%2009.pdf

Answer 60: ASW Sonar operator training for the Sonar displays and overall proficiency of sonar processing is included in the ASW Mission package (SQQ-89) coursework and is outside the scope of this RFP.

Question 61:

Document Name/Date: Escort Mission Module Specification / 8/5/14 Page: 13 and 109 Section N/A

Question: The ESCORT MISSION MODULE SPECIFICATION FOR THE ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE

(ASW) MISSION PACKAGE FOR THE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS (LCS) MISSION MODULES

PROGRAM, provided as GFI, includes reference to the Design Reference Mission Profile (DRMP). Will the Government provide a copy of the DRMP?

Answer 61: No.

Question 62:

Document Name/Date: Escort Mission Module Specification / 8/5/14 Page: 13 Section N/A

Question: The ESCORT MISSION MODULE SPECIFICATION FOR THE ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE

(ASW) MISSION PACKAGE FOR THE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS (LCS) MISSION MODULES

PROGRAM, provided as GFI, includes reference to the Concept of Employment (CONEMP). Will the Government provide a copy of the CONEMP?

Answer 62: No.

Question 63: Paragraph 3.3.10 ends with a dangling “and” after stating 2 out of 3 forms followed by illustrations of the 3 forms – Tables L-3, -4, and -5. Is there missing information after the "and"? if so could you please provide the missing data? Section 3.3.10, page 148

Answer 63: The Government reviewed and determined here is no missing information.

Question 64: Page 17 of 170 (NOTE D) and 137 (Section L 3.2.2) of 170, state that the Contractor shall propose a CPIF structure within 50/50 shareline boundaries with a minimum fee of 0% and a maximum fee of 8%. Page 137 (Section L 3.2.3 referenced the Incentive Fee Poll in accordance with Section J Attachment Performance Incentive Fee Plan. Attachment 4 identifies the Performance Incentive (Technical and Schedule) at a value up to the entire 8% (no cost incentive). Please clarify how/if the cost incentive should be considered/applied.

Answer 64: There are only Technical and Schedule Incentives. NOTE D is revised to the following:

The Contractor shall propose a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure for these item(s). The Contractor shall propose an incentive fee structure in accordance with Attachment J4 - Performance Incentive Plan.

Question 65: Section L 1.1 Identifies the cover letter, SF 33, RFP Sections A through J, RFP Section K, All RFP Fill-ins, and Small Business Subcontracting plan separately from Proposal Volumes I, II and III. Section L 3.

Identifies RFP Sections A through J, RFP Section K, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Offeror's Statement as part 1.1 through 1.4 of the Cost proposal. Please clarify whether RFP Sections A-J, RFP Section K, and the small business subcontracting plan should be stand-alone from , or part of the Cost volume. Also please clarify if the letter containing the offeror's statement of compliance to the RFP terms is separate from, or the same as the cover letter.

Answer 65: INCLUDE IN VOLUME III. THE OFFEROR'S STATEMENT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE

COVER LETTER.

Question 66: Please confirm the "...previous contract efforts..." described in 2.6.1 and "...self-assessment of performance under each contract identified." described in 2.6.2 refer to the same "past performance references" described in 2.6. Also, please confirm the information in 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 do not count against the 75 page Technical Proposal limit.

Answer 66: 2.6.1 AND 2.6.2 REFER TO THE SAME PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES IN 2.6.

RESPONSES TO 2.6.1 AND 2.6.2 DO COUNT TOWARDS THE 75 PAGE LIMIT.

All other terms…