Q A_Master_List_19_September_2014.docx

RFP N66604-14-R-1120rev1 Q&A 19 September 2014

QUESTION 1

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 1: THE NAVSEA SETR MANUAL IS AVAILABLE AT THE LINK BELOW

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

QUESTION 2

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 2: 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 TESTING WITHIN 27 MONTHS.

QUESTION 3

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 3: COTS PARTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.

QUESTION 4

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 4: 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 5

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 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 5: 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.”