N6660417R00640006.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 CONTINUATION PAGE

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Mar-2017

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 N66604-17-R-0064

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Jan-2017

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, 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 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

23-Mar-2017

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CTR. DIV., NPT.

BRIAN K. ROCHELLE, 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:

N66604-17-R-0064

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Distribution: FILE, KR, NUWC 0121, DCMA, DFAS, COR

NUWCDIVNPT Control Number: 170064

NUWCDIVNPT Requisition Number(s): N66604-1300307472

NUWCDIVNPT POC: Brian Rochelle, Email: brian.rochelle@navy.mil

Offerors shall submit proposals by electronic means rather than in accordance with the template proposal requirements on the cover page o fthe SF-33. All electronic submissions shall be sent to, Brian Rochelle, brian.rochelle@navy.mil. Please copy Andrew Nagelhout, andrew.c.nagelhout@navy.mil for all electronic submissions and questions. All submissions must be received by the closing date and time located on the cover page of the SF-33. Furthermore, a single electronic submission shall not exceed 15 megabytes. If this requires submission through multiple emails to send the complete proposal the first email shall include an accounting of each email to follow so the Government can determine it has a complete proposal. Proposal attachments must be in formats readable by Microsoft Office 10 or Adobe PDF. This solicitation is unrestricted.

NOTE 1: For pricing purposes the anticipated award date of this contract is 22 June, 2017.

NOTE 2: For all clauses where no CLIN applicability is called out, that clause is applicable to all CLINs.

NOTE 3: Offerors shall propose all cost and pricing in US currency. Offerors that do not propose cost and pricing per section B in US currency may have their offers determined unawardable. Offerors that account for cost in other than US currency may provide the cost backup in terms of foreign currency but must provide the applicable exchange rate, as well as, the source from which the exchange rate was derived. In the cost realism evaluation for cost reimbursable line items, the Government reserves the right to adjust, upward only, the cost realism position based on independent exchange rate information other than that provided by the offeror.

The purpose for this solicitation amendment is to increase the overall megabyte size limit for electronic submission from 5 megabytes, by 10 megabytes, to 15 megabytes.

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1: We hereby request an extension of at least 4 weeks beyond the March 3rd, 2017 due date for offer submission. Based on previous NUWC information provided, our company has been anticipating receiving initially a draft RFP that would provide us with what we believe would be adequate duration to perform a thorough assessment of the revised technical data package, Statement of Work, and all other solicitation requirements in order to prepare a price and overall proposal submission.

This is one of the Qs & As from the Pre‐Solicitation Conference Presentation held at NUWC on September 17th, 2015 and posted on September 25th, 2015:

Q: Will NUWC be providing the CLIN structure prior to the RFP release?

A: NUWC will put a draft RFP out at least 2 weeks in advance of the RFP.

“We always have the option to do a draft RFP. What I would say in this case is because of the dollar threshold and the fact that there’s going to be NAVSEA involvement at every stage, it’s highly likely that we would actually put a draft RFP out for this, so I guess I’ll commit to this right now. We’ll put a draft RFP out at least 2 weeks in advance of the RFP hitting the street. I guess we could do that; if not more.”

A1: As a result of the solicitation conference briefing slides for Proposal Due date showing 60 days after RFP release, the Government will extend the RFP submission deadline from 52 days to 74 days (Friday 24 March 2017). This extension will also address the previously anticipated 14 day draft RFP period. The Government determined, based on the solicitation requirements, that 74 days is sufficient time for all offerors to respond adequately to the solicitation since a preliminary Technical Data Package (TDP) was provided at the Industry Day and changes between the preliminary and final TDP are not significant.

Q2: Are all of the listed FAT tests in 4‐1 required to be conducted on each production H&SG?

A2: Yes. All Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT) listed in 4‐1 of the Performance Spec, as well as the Electro‐Optical Slip Ring Assembly (EOSRA) Test Specification are required tests to be conducted on each production H&SG.

Q3: To enable FAT testing will the Government be providing as GFE representative tow cables and towed arrays to be used for testing? And, if so, will multiple cable sets be provided, as we estimate that wear and tear from the rigors of testing will require multiple test tow cables and arrays.

A3: Yes. The Government will provide representative tow cables and array modules as needed to complete required testing as described in the attached Government Furnished Property Made Available form.

Q4: We understand that H&SG units have been or are being built by Rolls Royce Naval Marine Canada, who also undertook the design modification work on the V4 H&SG. We would therefore assume the Government contracted with this company to develop and have approved a Factory Test Procedure required to carry out all of the tests listed in Table 4‐1. Assuming this is Government property, can this Test Procedure be provided to bidders?

A4: The current Factory Test Procedure is somewhat specific to the Rolls Royce test facility equipment and does not necessarily represent the way another vendor might test the same requirements. It also does not presently address all test requirements in the current Performance Specification and Electro‐Optical Slip Ring Assembly (EOSRA) Test Specification.

Per Statement of Work, section 4.3.2 and in accordance with CDRL A005, the Government requires a new (vendor specific) Factory Acceptance Test Procedure. It is not the Governments intent to provide the current Factory Test Procedure to bidders.

Q5: Schedule: We request a significant extension of the proposal due date. At the Pre‐ Solicitation Conference held on 17SEP2015, substantial emphasis was placed on NUWC’s goals including: a. Increase overall competition by ensuring all companies have a fair opportunity to compete and b. ?Encourage new vendors to bid. It was stated that a draft RFP would likely be available 2‐3 weeks before the final RFP release and that the response time would be 60 days after final release. Obviously, a very large amount of time has passed since the DEC2015 intended release date. All potential new vendors have been working on other programs. On 10JAN2017, as you know, the final RFP was released with no advance notice and no draft. This puts everyone other than the incumbent at a major disadvantage as we work to quickly re‐ familiarize ourselves with the TDP details. Further, since it was announced that the TDP had changes, we had to wait until we received the new version until we could begin preparing to bid.

Preparing a compliant costing for this large program proposal under this 52 day delivery requirement is essentially impossible. An extension until at least early April seems appropriate to truly encourage competition for this large production program

A5: See response to question 1.

Q6: Small Business: We request consideration of an increase to the small business participation goal. NUWC admirably had a 25% goal in FY14 and a 35% goal in FY15. However, for the subject proposal, the small business participation goal is only 10%. This is a build to print production program with many assemblies and subassemblies requiring a wide variety of manufacturing skill sets. The incumbent, as well as their most likely lead competitor, are both non‐US, large businesses. Having a significantly higher small business participation goal will ensure that more of the Navy’s funds are expended with US manufacturers, specifically small businesses.

A6: The small business participation percent minimum will remain at 10%. This was set and developed based on this specific requirement and finalized with the concurrence of both the Small Business Advocate (SBA) here at NUWC as well as the regional SBA representative.

Q7: Test Facilities: NUWC Newport has a number of specialized facilities specifically for testing and refurbishing handling systems such as the OK‐410. Can respondents to this solicitation propose using these NUWC facilities for some of the required testing? If so, please provide guidance on how to contact appropriate personnel at NUWC to solicit cost estimates.

A7: The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport (NUWCDIVNPT) does not have the capability to make available adequate test facilities to meet the Factory Acceptance Test requirements therefore NUWC will not provide this as an option during performance.

Q8: Would the Navy extend the proposal response deadline for 30 more days? More time is needed for TDP analysis and to get quotes for components since no Draft RFP was provided with a TDP as referenced in the Pre‐Solicitation Conference Q&A and proposal responses are due 45 days after release instead of the 60 days referenced in the Pre‐ Solicitation.

A8: See response to question 1.

Q9: CLIN 0003 refers to the Fairlead Part Number 79501030‐0 which is a subassembly of CLIN 0002 H&SG Part Number 79501181‐0. Can the Navy please clarify their intent to include the Fairlead in both CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 but separate from the Spares in CLIN 0004?

A9: It is the Navy’s intent to purchase H&SG Part Number 79501181‐0 (not including the Fairlead) under CLIN 0002 and to purchase Fairlead Part Number 79501030‐0 separately under CLIN 0003.

Q10: The RFP includes the SDD and SVD as GFI yet there is no mention of software in the Statement of Work. Will the current software baseline be provided as GFI so no software development is required given the build‐to‐print procurement?

A10: There is presently no software development required. The current software baseline will be provided as GFI upon contract award.

Q11: Can the Navy include the following documentation as GFI? This documentation is referenced in the H&SG Specification 08‐001:

Requirement R002000) 8293667 – MFTA mechanical interface, cable retainer assembly;

Requirement R002100) 103045‐04 – MFTA electro‐optical interface

A11: This is an error in the current H&SG Specification. Requirement R002000 should reference drawing 79501597‐0 Assembly Retainer MFTA Cable. Requirement R002100 should reference drawing 79501232‐0 254 Slip Ring. Both drawings are already provided in the TDP. This will be corrected in a future release of the H&SG Specification.

Q12: What Government Furnished Material (GFM) and/or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided as part of the contract? For example what Test Equipment, Test Cables, Simulators, etc. are available for use?

A12: The GFP documentation was intended to be attached to amendment 00001 of the solicitation. It was inadvertently left off. Please see solicitation amendment 00002 for GFP documentation.

Q13: The part numbers referenced for the subassemblies of the Top Level MFTA H&SG System do not include the part number for the shipping crates as listed in the Drawing Tree spreadsheet. For example, part number 79500060‐0 for the Winch does not include part number 79501741‐0 for the Shipping Crate, Winch. Is the Navy's intent to include those shipping crates in the production?

A13: Yes it is the Navy’s intent that shipping crates will be produced as part of the production contract. The following drawings listed in the H&SG drawing tree are provided in the TDP to support the construction of shipping crates:

79501739 Shipping Control Console/Protection Screen 79501741 Shipping Crate Winch 79501743 Shipping Crate PDP Panel

79501747 Shipping Crate Fairlead Assembly 79501748 Shipping Crate Hand Rails and Maintenance Kit 79501752 Shipping Crate Levelwind Assembly

Q14: Can the Navy provide as GFI the CAD and/or 3D model source files that generate the GFI provided PDF drawings?

A14: The Navy does not have a complete CAD/3D model source file under configuration management. The PDF drawings in the TDP are the only files that will be provided.

Q15: CLIN 0003 is for pricing of the Fairlead. CLIN 0002 is for the HS&G System, which includes the Fairlead. Should we price CLIN 0002 exclusive of the Fairlead or include it within that price and then again, separately, under CLIN 0003?

A15: See response to question 9.

Q16: CLIN 0002 states that delivery of the first unit is scheduled for 12 MARO. However, the plan presented at the Pre‐Solicitation Conference indicated that orders placed in FY17 would be due through FY19. A first unit in 12 months appears impossible considering some of the longest lead items. We strongly suggest an adjustment of this requirement.

A16: The Navy determined 12 months is a realistic based on historical production.

Q17: The Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) for each unit logically directly electrical and optical functionality testing along with operational testing of the complete winch system. However, it seems to also imply (by reference to Table 4‐1) that load tests up to and including the cable breaking load of 93,600lbs. are also part of the FAT. This seems incorrectly specified as part of the FAT as it would more logically be part of the Design Verification tests. Company X has built the large OA‐9070 handling system for many years and continues to build it for the Virginia Class submarines. We run electrical and operational verification tests on every delivered unit but we never run load tests. As this program is also a build to print production, please consider removing the load test requirements.

A17: An H&SG static load test of 84,000 lbs. is required as part of the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) for each delivered unit as called out in the H&SG Specification 3.2.1.2.2 Design Load {R003600}. The static load test requirement {R003600} is incorrectly stated in table 4‐1 as 93,600 lbs. The requirement called out in the H&SG Specification para 3.2.1.4.2 Levelwind Assembly {R008300} and restated in table 4‐1 is also specified incorrectly as 93,600 lbs. The correct specification is 84,000 lbs. This will be corrected in a future release of the H&SG Specification. It should be noted that a drum brake static load test of 20,000 lbs. is also required as part of FAT for each delivered unit as specified in para 3.2.1.4.1.3.2 Drum Brake {R006000} of the H&SG Specification.

Q18: In the portion of the TDP that includes the winch frame assembly, DWG# 79500242‐0, there is no call out for the grade of HSLA for the steel parts. What grade of HSLA do they want used for the parts that call for HSLA steel?

A18: On DWG# 79500242‐0 specific components are listed by find number in the Material List (sheet 2). Also on the Material List are quantities and references to the notes on sheet 1.

Please refer to the notes (specifically notes 1‐10 and note 29) for material specification details.

Q19: We understood that a draft RFP for the OK410 system was to be released prior to this final release for industry review/comment. Since no draft was released and based on the extent of the requirements and complexity of the newly released TDP, we request that a proposal due date extension be granted to allow us time to thoroughly understand the requirements and prepare a fully compliant price proposal.

A19: See response to question 1.

Q20: PL 79501181‐0, MFTA H & SG System, FIND NO. 30 Interconnect Cable Diagram ‐ R‐SL81 references item 79501124‐11. Drawing 79501124‐X, MFTA H. & S. G. SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM does not reference a dash 11. Please provide an updated version of drawing 79501124 that specifies the dash 11 and/or clarify this requirement.

A20: PL 79501181‐0, MFTA H & SG System, FIND NO. 30 Interconnect Cable Diagram ‐ R‐SL81 is incorrectly labeled. The description for FIND No 30 should instead read "Interconnect Cable Diagram ‐ R‐SL301". R‐SL301 is identified on drawing 79501124‐X, sheet 2 of 5, zone E7. Note that this cable is not supplied with the system. Only plug and backshell R‐SL301P1 is provided (See FIND NO. P16 and P31 on PL 79501124‐X sheets 17 and 18). This will be corrected in a future release of the TDP.

Q21: Document 7950‐304‐1013, ICD CABLE RUN SHEETS, sheets 24 and 25 of 29 reference CABLE DESIGNATION R‐SL301. CABLE DESIGNATION R‐SL301 is not referenced on PL 79501181‐ 0, MFTA H & SG System or in the 7950‐301‐3005‐1 H&SG Drawing Tree CLIN009 spreadsheet.

Please clarify this requirement and provide appropriate updated technical documentation.

A21: Cable designation R‐SL 81 has been changed and is now designated as cable R‐SL 301. See answer to question #20 above. This will be corrected in a future release of the TDP.

Q22: Drawing 79501033‐0 FAIRLEAD CIRCULAR Note 1 is cut off as is clear from the partial obscuring of the word “PER” as well as the partial blocking of the revision history. Please clarify this note as well as Note 2, which may also be truncated, as well as Rev B, which appears to be blank. Further, Note 9.A. addresses inspection requirements but references MIL‐STD‐278E, Table XVIII, which is the standard for inspecting steel components. Table XIX would, in our view, be appropriate for Nickel based components. Please clarify this note. With regard to this component, we further request the availability of variances that have been allowed that are relevant for production of this part, notably due to H Monel not being a weldable material and thus not able to be repaired to Note 11.

A22: The following clarifications are provided:

a. Note 1: MATERIAL: "H" MONEL PER QQ‐N‐288 COMP. B.

b. Note 2: HEAT TREATMENT ‐ NONE

c. Rev. B block should state “ECP 5966”

d. MIL‐STD‐278E Table XVIII RT acceptance criteria for nonferrous castings(page 60) is the correct reference. Other revisions of this document may reference a different table number for nonferrous castings.

e. Drawing 79501033‐0 FAIRLEAD CIRCULAR was derived from an older drawing which has been used for decades to produce this part. Weld repairs for this part are permitted in accordance with the restrictions in note 11. No variances have been authorized.

Corrections to this drawing will be made in a future release of the TDP.

Q23: Due to the large number of drawings, we request an extension to the proposal due date to allow sufficient time for a thorough examination of any changes since we last manufactured this equipment. If possible, we would ask for an additional 30 days beyond the current March 24th deadline.

A23: The Technical Data Package (TDP) for this solicitation initially became available upon completion of the Pre‐Solicitation Conference, held on 17 September, 2015. Through the official solicitation announcement on 10 January, 2017 industry was re‐notified of the TDP's availability.

The Government feels that sufficient time has been provided to attain and evaluate the TDP for purposes of preparing a competitive proposal. Finally, as stated in A1 above, the "changes between the preliminary and final TDP are not significant.” Therefore, an extension to the RFP submission date will not be provided.

Q24: Can you point me in the direction of the “GFI in section 3.1” ? We’re having a difficult time locating the Config. Management Plan, but perhaps it’s there and we just can’t find it.

A24: The Configuration Management (CM) Plan was inadvertanly left out of the GFI material provided via CD. As a result, please see the attached CM plan to this solicitation amendment.

Q25: We are not able to locate the reference ODIM paint spec, as called out on drawings.

Reference is Document 7950‐301‐1008 ODIM paint spec.

A25: The ODIM paint spec was not included with the initial GFI material provided. Please see the Coating Specification documentation attached to this solicitation amendment.

Q26: Test Facilities: We provide the following clarification for reconsideration. We request the opportunity to conduct some (not all) of the required testing at NUWC. We understand that NUWC does not have a facility for conducting the high static load load test. However, NUWC does have facilities for many of the other tests as these were recently done to support the OK‐ 410 refurbishment program. Conducting these tests at existing NUWC facilities reduces both cost and risk for the program. We have visited these facilities in Buildings 5 (Naval Array Technical Support Center) and 6 (Towed Array Handling Equipment Facility), both located on Naval Station Newport, in other programs and are well familiar with the facilities available.

Please provide guidance on how to engage appropriate personnel at NUWC to solicit pricing input.

A26: Please see response to question 7.

Q27: We request the inclusion of progress payments clause FAR 52.232.32 or FAR 52.232.13.

A27: “Performance” based payments will be authorized. Clause 52.232‐32 has been added to Section I. Please see attached table for details.

Q28: Would the Navy extend the proposal response deadline for 14 more days? More time is needed to incorporate documents that were not previously provided.

A28: Please see response to question 1.

Q29: Page 2 Note 1 states that the anticipated award date is 22 June 2017. This appears to be in conflict was Note F.1 on page 40 that shows start dates of 1 March, 1 April and 1 January).

A29: Please see updated dates in Table on Page 40 of the solicitation at Note F1(a).

Q30: Page 40 ‐ lists delivery of spares and PIOs as 3 MARO. This does not seem possible as some purchased parts are 20 week leadtimes.

A30: Please see updated Table on Page 40 of the solicitation at Note F1(a).

Q31: CLIN references clause HQ C‐1‐0004. Clause was not provided as part of RFP.

A31: Please see clause located on page 22 of the RFP.

Q32: Drawings reference ODIM Paint Document 7950‐301‐1008 and ODIM Technical Document 10133‐0. Provide these documents.

A32: Please see response to question 25.

Q33: Can we get a copy of WI‐05‐47? This appears to be a marking specification.

A33: WI‐05‐47 was referenced in error. All instances of WI‐05‐47 are hereby replaced with MIL‐ STD‐130 Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property which is the applicable requirement.

Drawings will be updated to reflect this specification in a future release of the TDP after award.

Q34: Section A requests an electronic submittal of the RFP response. This contradicts Clause L40X Section L which refers to the number of copies, CD‐ROM copies and hard copies should be in 3‐ring binders. Please clarify what the proper submittal method is for compliant response to this RFP.

A34: Electronic submittal by e‐mail, as described on page 2, is the only acceptable method for proposal submission. Sections A and L (Clause L30X) are revised to correct the ambiguity.

Q35: In efforts to provide Navsea with the most competitive pricing possible, and to ensure that all technical data is understood regarding the requirements of this project, [we] respectfully request a bid extension on this RFP. Ideally a one‐month extension would be provided.

A35: Please see response to question 1.

(End of Summary of Changes)