N6660417R14980003.pdf

N6660417R1498

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

S 1 35

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Sep-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 N6660417R1498

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Jun-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 X 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

28-Sep-2017

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

CHESTER M. SWISZCZ, CONTRACTING OFFICER,

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:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

GENERAL INFORMATION

SCD: C

NAICS: 334419

PSC: 5999

NUWCDIVNPT Control Number: 171498

NUWCDIVNPT Requisition Number(s): 1300579867

NUWCDIVNPT POC: chester.swiszcz@navy.mil

NOTES TO OFFERORS

Amendment 03:

1. The solicitation closing date is extended to 2:00 pm EST on 7 NOVEMBER 2017.

2. Q&A is attached.

3. Statement of work revised for clarification in sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.5.

4. CDRL A006 revised.

5. GFP list revised.

6. CLINs for additional units specified in Drawing 8595331 added.

7. TSOB Gerber Files added.

8. Test Set Capability Documents added.

9. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Q&A

# Questions/Comment Response

What does the GFE Test Set do, exactly? Does it just provide required stimulus for the TSOB to operate? Or does it actually conduct any tests outlined in the CIPS? Also, is it us solely for the TSOB? Or is it also used for the EEA?

The Torpedo Swim Out Box (TSOB) Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Test Set is only a functional confidence tester and does not fully test all Critical Item Performance Specifications (CIPS), Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT), or First Article test requirements. A test document providing the capabilities of the test set will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) for clarification. The GFI file is called "TSOB Functionality Test Procedures v2_1.doc".

A new Test Set is currently being developed for the Exercise Electronics Assembly (EEA) configuration being acquired with this contract 2

Does the GFE TSOB Test Set meet the requirements necessary to conduct FAT and/or First Article testing, as specified in 8418147, Section 4.1?

Do the testers being provided cover all production FAT requirements? If not, what requirements does the tester not cover?

and will be available August 2018. A document with the testing capabilities of the new test set will be provided as GFI for clarification. The GFI file is called "EEA_TS_Capabilities.xlsx".

Will the TSOB test set and cables provided by the gov’t perform all specified FAT (100% production functional acceptance testing) and First Article testing?

Is the MK 562 test set capable of testing all of the EEA functionality in order to determine if the EEA meets all of the EEA CIPS 8594967 requirements?

The MK 562 Test Set is not capable of testing any EEA functionality of the EEA configuration being acquired with this contract. The MK562 will be removed from Attachment 2. A new Test Set is currently being developed for the EEA configuration being acquired with this contract and will be available August 2018. A document with the testing capabilities of the new test set will be provided as GFI for clarification. The GFI file is called "EEA_TS_Capabilities.xlsx".

Is the MK 562 test set capable of providing fault localization for issues discovered with an EEA Assembly (8595271) down to the CCA level of the EEA Mother Board (8595271) and FPGA (8595274/8667340) cards?

The RFP identifies a MK562 Test Set as Government Furnished Property. What requirements does the MK562 test the EEA or TSOB assemblies?

Is the GFE MK 562 capable of testing all of the CIPS requirements of the new EEA? If not, please identify where cost associated with test station development should be captured.

Per SOW Attachment 2 GFE provided consists of:

a. Item 1 TSOB Test Set

b. Item 2 TSOB Test Cable Set

c. There are no items listed for the EEA. Are there any Test Sets or equipment for the EEA that will be provided? If not, do any fixture schematics exist that can be provided so that the contractor may replicate existing apparatus?

A new Test Set is currently being developed for the EEA configuration being acquired with this contract and will be available August 2018. A document with the testing capabilities of the new test set will be provided as GFI for clarification.

The GFI file is called "EEA_TS_Capabilities.xlsx"..

There are not approved drawings or schematics available.

Is there a board level test set available for the EEA Mother Board (8595271) and/or the FPGA (8595274/8667340) cards?

There is not a board level test set available for the EEA Mother Board nor FPGA cards.

Is the MK 556 cable test set available for use to verify the TSOB cables?

The MK 556 cable test set is available for use to verify the 203W101 (8712672) and 203W102 (8712673) cables only. The MK 556 does not currently have the capability to verify the adapter cable (8712675) being acquired on this contract.

What functional testing does the Gov't intend the contractor to execute on the EEA and/or TSOB using

MK660 ATE?

The Government is performing qualification testing, therefore there is no requirement for the contractor to execute any tests on the MK660.

The MK660 is available on a not to interfere basis should the contractor want to utilize it for confidence testing purposes.

Can the Government please provide the classification level for each of the GFE items listed in Attachment 2?

Both the TSOB Test Set and the TSOB Test Set Cable are unclassified.

Are FIR level Test sets going to be provided for the EEA and TSOB Kits?

The GFE Test Set for the TSOB will be provided and is only a functional confidence tester which does not fully test all CIPS, FAT (Factory Acceptance Test), or First Article test requirements. A test document providing the capabilities of the test set will be provided as GFI for clarification. The GFI file is called "TSOB Functionality Test Procedures v2_1.doc".

A new Test Set is currently being developed for the EEA configuration being acquired with this contract and will be available August 2018. A document with the testing capabilities of the new test set will be provided as GFI for clarification.

The GFI file is called "EEA_TS_Capabilities.xlsx".

The DD254 states this program is SECRET, as does the Solicitation, but the CIPS, test procedures, test results, schematics, drawings, etc, are not classified.

Nor does there appear to be any classified documents or appendices. The DD254 block 10 and 11, also do not indicate any classified information will be received or generated, or classified hardware. Can you define exactly what is classified? Will we receive any classified GFE or GFE? Will the products produced be classified?

Test results?

The EEA becomes SECRET if the EEA is tested on the MK660 ATE or if the EEA is connected to any torpedo hardware in the WAF where real-time data is collected and stored onto an SD card. Until the SD card containing the data is removed, the EEA is considered SECRET. Once the SD card is removed from the EEA via proper procedures and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), the system becomes unclassified. The CIPS, procedures, schematics, and drawings are all unclassified so the contractor is not expected to recieve any classified GFE, produce classified products, nor classified test results.

Section 1a appears to have a lower classification than section 1b. Should 1a assume the highest level of classification for the program? If so, should that be confidential or secret as referenced in section 13?

The highest level of classification for the program is SECRET. This is because when the EEA is tested on the MK660 ATE or if the EEA is connected to any torpedo hardware in the WAF where real-time data is collected and stored onto an SD card, the EEA becomes SECRET. Until the SD card containing the data is removed, the EEA is considered SECRET. Once the SD card is removed from the EEA via proper procedures and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), the system

Section 11 does not currently allow for any of the following: 1) Receive Classified Documents Only; 2) Receive and generate classified material; 3) Fabricate, Modify or Store Classified Hardware. Is it therefore the Government's intent to modify the DD254 to allow for any or all of these items? If so, can the Government please indicate which of these would be allowed?

becomes unclassified. Section 11 was intentionally completed to not allow for reciept or generation of classified documents, nor fabrication, modification, or storage of classified hardware. These are not required for this contract.

Section 1a states the security clearance required is unclassified. Section 1b states the highest level of safeguarding required is confidential. Section 13 states that the highest level of classification is Secret. Based on this information sections 1a and 1b appear to be unclear. Therefore, can the Government please clarify what the highest level of security clearance is for this effort (1a) and what the level of safeguarding is for this effort (1b)?

CDRL A006 requires delivery prior to CDR and then redelivery prior to TRR. Neither review is required by this RFP. Please update CDRL A006 to review reference to CDR and TRR as neither formal review is required as part of this contract.

CDRL A006 has been updated to the following:

"The contractor shall submit a preliminary plan 45 business days before the start of contractor testing. Government review and approval will be for technical content and format. The Government will review and comment within 15 business days.

The contractor shall submit the final plan 20 business days before the start of contractor testing. The Government will review the revised plan within 10 business days."

Is CDRL A006 TEPP intended cover DVT, Periodic or First Article test events? Or is it intended to cover just FAT testing?

CDRL A006 TEPP is intended to cover FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) and the testing that must be performed by the contractor according to the 4.6.5: Production Screening section of the SOW.

Is a G&C card cage available for use during HASS testing of the TSOB? If not, are the design details of the cage available such that we can properly simulate the mechanical fastening of the TSOB assembly during HASS testing?

A G&C card cage is not required to perform this testing and not available for use during HASS testing of the TSOB, however the design details of the cage can be made available no earlier than contract award. Please note that the Government will not fund the production of a G&C card cage as it is not required.

The RDP states that the EEA and TSOB will be programmed by the contractor using files provided upon award. At what level of classification will the resulting assemblies be?

The level of classification of the resulting EEA and TSOB assemblies upon being programmed is unclassified, therefore, declassification procedures are not applicable and will not be provided as GFI. 23

If programming the EEA and/or TSOB render them classified, will approved government declassification procedures be provided as GFI?

What aspect of the execution scope of work is classified?

If the EEA is tested on the MK660 ATE or if the EEA is connected to any torpedo hardware in the WAF where real-time data is collected and stored onto an SD card, the EEA becomes SECRET. Until the SD card containing the data is removed, the EEA is considered SECRET. Once the SD card is removed from the EEA via proper procedures and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), the system becomes unclassified.

25 Is the shipment of the EEA and/or TSOB classified?

Shipment of the TSOB is not classified. Shipment of the EEA is only classified if an SD card containing classified data is inserted.

Will approved shipping containers for the EEA and/or TSOB be provided as GFE?

Approved shipping containers for the EEA and TSOB will not be provided as GFE. The scope of the contract states that the contractor will fabricate, assemble, test, inspect, package, and deliver First Article and Production EEAs and TSOB Kits for the MK48 Heavyweight Torpedoes using best commercial practices. Packaging using best commercial practices is already part of the scope and containers are not being procured on this contract. 27

If no approved shipping container for the EEA and/or TSOB is to be provided as GFE, will the government be adding additional scope to qualifying and procure approved shipping containers?

Is contractor support to IV&V testing funded under the CPFF Engineering Services CLINs? If so, please confirm that the government believes 100 hours is sufficient to support up to 6-months of testing.

Yes, any support for IV&V testing would be funded under the CPFF Engineering Services CLINs. The Government believes that the defined hours are sufficient. Support would be on an as required

SOW Para 4.5.1, “Integration, Qualification and IV&V Testing Support”. Can you affirm that the Contractor’s tasking is simply as-needed support of the Government testing and nothing more? And that the Government is solely responsible for test plans, test conduct and test funding? We understand this tasking includes Failure Analysis and Reporting, which is the Contractor’s responsibility.

basis defined in Technical Instructions. The Government is responsible for IV&V testing.

Last paragraph indicates that the contractor needs to review any Gov't ECP and contractor needs to review and shall provide an impact within 15 days.

Is it the intent of the customer to utilize Engineering Services hours to complete this effort?

Review of any government ECPs is within scope and should not be charged to Engineering Service hours. Section 4.2 - Configuration Management of the SOW details the effort.

The RFP identifies that if any changes are made to the EEA or TSOB kits, then the Gov't will decide if the contractor first article testing is required. This is in conflict with Section 4.5, which indicates that the Government will perform first article testing.

Please clarify.

The paragraph should read, "Prior to the contractor redelivering the repaired EEAs and TSOB Kits that failed Government Integration, Qualification and IV&V Testing, the Government will decide if the repaired EEAs and TSOB Kits will require further First Article testing. The Government’s decision will be based on the results of the contractor’s failure analysis and corrective action." This will be corrected in the

SOW.

Paragraph states the Gerber files will be provided, but that they may not be accurate. Do provided Gerber files represent a configuration that meets all performance requirements? Yes, the Gerber file for 8411474 will be provided.

The Gerber files being provided do not meet all performance requirements of the EEA and TSOB configurations being acquired on this contract.

They do meet some of the requirements of previous configurations and if being used, would require verification with the current drawings prior to use. 33 Will Gerber files for the 8712668 TSOB be provided?

Would it be possible to get a copy of the GERBER and drill files for the TSOB PWB 8411474? They were not included in the TDP.

Production Screening, which includes HASS, is specified. 8595331 is not specified within RFP Section 4 regarding how it is to be used. Will Proof of Life (POL) and Margin testing be conducted before hand per 8595331?

Proof of Life (POL) will be performed in accordance with 8595331. The contractor is responsible for POL testing. Margin testing is required in the event of design changes. Section

3.3 of the SOW lists 8595331 as an applicable document for paragraph # 4.6.5. Section 4.6.5 states that "The contractor shall perform production screening in accordance with applicable documents" where applicable documents is referring to 8595331.

Is it the government's intent to provide GFE in support of conducting EEA FAT and/or First Article testing, as specified in 8594967, Section 4.1?

GFE in support of conducting EEA FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) and First Article testing is limited to the GFE identified in Attachment 2.

If the government is not provide GFE in support of conducting EEA FAT and/or First Article testing, will it be included in the contractors scope to design, build, and certify new ATE?

An ATE is not being acquired as part of this contract, therefore scope for designing, building, and certifying a new ATE will not be added. The contractor may perform FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) choosing their preferred method using the Government approved test plan and procedures prepared and delivered by the contractor. First Article testing will be performed by the Government. 38

Is the contractor responsible for generating the test sets needed to meet the requirements of Documents 8594967 and 8418147 Critical Item Performance Specifications?

The EEA QATP document and TSOB QATP document are not referenced on the scope of which they are to be used in RFP Section 4. Can the Government please clarify?

The EEA QATP document and TSOB QATP document are being provided as GFI. The QATP is a Government document which describes the activities planned for the acceptance of the EEA and TSOB. The QATPs are for Government planning purposes and does not obviate any testing requirments specified in the performance specifications.

When will the EEA and TSOB QATP documents be provided.

EEA and TSOB QATP documents will be provided prior to first article delivery.

How will last time/lifetime buys identified by the contractor to resolve obsolescence be funded?

Last time and lifetime buys identified by the contractor to resolve obsolescence will be funded on a case by case basis with KO approval.

As this is a build to print, are there any existing Work Instructions and Acceptance Testing Procedures (ATP’s) that the contractor may obtain copies of?

a. For the TSOB?

b. For the EEA?

Work Instructions and Acceptance Testing procedures will not be available. Please see SOW section 4.3. The contractor is reponsible for preparing and delivering a Test and Evaluation Program plan in accordance with CDRL A006 that includes FAT (Factory Acceptance Test).

43 What is the sampling rate for periodic testing?

There is no set sampling rate for periodic testing.

Sampling rate will be at the Government's discretion.

It is assumed that all testing requiring a torpedo or part of a torpedo will be performed by the USG whether required for First Article or periodic. Is this correct?

All FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) testing will be accomplished by the contractor regardless of whether units are first article, periodic, or production as defined by the VCRI. First article and periodic testing at the torpedo level will be conducted by the USG.

In order to facilitate proper pricing related to the various interface testing, do the following referenced documents exist, and can they be provided? SOW Para 3.3, Document#: 8712668, 8712672, 8712673, 8712675, 8594967; EEA CIPS

8594967 Para 2.2.1 Document#: 5585295, 5856101, 8243501; TSOB CIPS 8418147 Para 2.2.1 Document#: 8411466, 8243507, 8475252, 7614740- 606, 5584933, 8411470. We are requesting all ICD’s IDS’s and TRS’s referenced in the two CIPS documents.

The documents requested from SOW Para 3.3 are included in the TDP and should be already accessible. In the event that the contractor requires the additional documents referenced in the CIPS, they will be provided after contract award. All documents listed in the question are UNCLASSIFIED, except for 8243501 (System Performance Specification, Torpedo, MK48 ADCAP MOD7) and 7614740-606 (Interface Design Specification for MK 48 Mod 6AT Submarine Fire Control System) which are CONFIDENTIAL. In the event that these are required, the relevant UNCLASSIFIED information from the CONFIDENTIAL documents will be provided.

The two CIPS identify four types of tests, but we would like to clarify who is responsible for each type. As we interpret the SOW, the Contractor is responsible for all Factory Acceptance Testing; and the Government is responsible for DVD, Periodic and First Article Testing. Please confirm whether the Government or the Contractor responsible for test planning, test procedures, test conduct, test reporting and test funding of the DVT testing? Same question for First Article and for Periodic tests. For example, SOW Para 4.6 Production states “Periodic samples…shall be selected…by a Government Inspector for submission to an activity…to determine compliance…”. While the word “Periodic” is used, it is not clear if this is what is referred to in the CIPS as “Periodic Tests”. If not a “periodic test” as defined in the CIPS, what test category does that fall under (Government

The contractor is responsible for FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) and the testing that must be performed by the contractor according to the SOW (i.e. Production Screening). The government will be performing First Article, DVT and Periodic testing. The Government reserves the right to test any requirement of the specifications and drawings from a random periodic sample EEA or

TSOB.

randomly selected units for testing)?

Is SOW 4.5 detailed design analysis and subsequent change verification funded under a CPFF CLIN? Or part of first article FFP?

Detailed design analysis and subsequent change verification is funded as part of First Article FFP.

CPFF tasks include Government Testing and design studies (SOW 4.7.2 under SOW 4.7 Engineering and Technical Services) and testing support of first article and production “issues”. Can the Government provide additional clarification on typical issues? SOW Para 4.5 appears to infer that Design Studies are limited to obsolescence and manufacturability issues. Is the Design Study tasking intended to consist of identifying design issues not related to obsolescence and manufacturability?

The contractor is responsible for conducting a detailed design analysis of the EEA and TSOB Kit.

Since this contract is build-to-print, it would not be expected that the analysis would result in a complete redesign and that most issues would be related to obsolesence and manufacturability.

However, the detailed design analysis is not limited to obsolesence and manufacturability issues and if a design issue is found, the Government may issue an ECP for the deficiency found within applicable documents 3.3.1 - 3.3.8 in accordance with SOW Section 4.2.

If the Design Studies include a complete analysis of the design, and a subsequent failure during First Article testing is realized; and the root cause is determined to be a design flaw (of the GFI Build-to- Print design), who, then, is responsible for that failure? In other words, is Design Studies tasking intended to transfer ownership and responsibility of the design from the Government to the Contractor?

No, responsibility is not being shifted from Government to Contractor in this case. The Gerber files being provided as GFI do not meet all performance requirements of the EEA and TSOB configurations being acquired on this contract.

They do meet some of the requirements of previous configurations and if being used, would require verification with the current drawings prior to use. If the design studies results in a deficiency finding, the Government may issue an ECP during the contract and notify the contractor.

Please see Section 4.2 of the SOW.

We understand from the SOW SCOPE and many other references that this is a Build-To-Print contract. We also understand that the Contractor is responsible for any design changes they implement, and for failures related to manufacturing workmanship. However, SOW Para 4.5.1 …Qualification…Support… states that in the event of a failure of a FA unit, the Contractor shall implement “corrective actions” and “redeliver any First Article EEAs and …TSOB Kits that failed Government…Testing”. In the event that the failure analysis demonstrates that the failure was related to a design flaw and not related to any design changes implemented by the Contractor or related to manufacturing workmanship, will the Contractor be provided additional funding to implement design changes and re-manufacture FA units? Of no, how does the Government intend to address this issue, should it arise? Must we price this risk into the FFP CLINs 0001 and 0002? If yes, can the Government provide details on the maturity of this design, testing and results to date?

No, if a detailed design analysis results in a design flaw finding, the Government may issue an ECP during the contract and notify the contractor.

Please see Section 4.2 of the SOW.

Section 4.5 ‘Production – First Article’ states: ‘ Upon successful build of the First Articles, The contractor shall package, ship, and deliver First Article EEAs and First Article TSOB Kits in accordance with Section E & F’. What testing, if any, is the contractor required to perform prior to delivery of First Article EEAs and First Article TSOB Kits?

The contractor is responsible for FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) and Manufacturing screening tests and any other testing that must be performed by the contractor according to the

SOW.

How does the Government intend to conduct EEA First Article testing?

The Government intends to execute testing in accordance with the Qualification Acceptance Test Plan (QATP).

Is the Contractor Responsible for testing only in accordance with "MANUFACTURING QUALITY

ASSURANCE SPECIFICATION." 8595331?

The contractor is responsible for all testing called out in the SOW and associated CDRLs, which includes 8595331 and FAT (Factory Acceptance Test).

Will native design files (such as printed wiring board (PWB) layout database files, schematic files, solid model Files, drawings files, etc) be available upon award to support TDP updates, ECP updates, and updates to PWB artwork changes?

Native files for the EEA and TSOB will be available upon award to support TDP updates, ECP updates, and updates to PWB artwork changes.

Has someone built the EEA Assembly (8595271), TSOB Assembly (8712668), and/or TSOB cables (8712672, 8712673, 8712675) as detailed in the contract baseline TDP before?

TSOB:

-8712668 has never been fully assembled in the past, this is the new design.

-8712670 board has not changed, except that the airborn connectors were removed and are now being soldered directly to the board.

-8712675 is an entirely new cable, it has never been built before. The Government is in the process of building these cables.

-8712672 and 8712673 are existing cables, with the lengths modified. These cables have been built before at original lengths.

EEA:

8595271 Engineering Design Model (EDM's) have been built and tested.

Has the EEA Assembly (8595271), TSOB Assembly (8712668), and TSOB cables (8712672, 8712673, 8712675) as detailed in the contract baseline TDP passed all CIPS requirements, including environmental tests?

TSOB:

An earlier similar TSOB design passed Functional Testing. Functional and Environmental Testing has been performed on the newer version of the

TSOB.

EEA:

Most of the functional testing has been completed but no environmental testing has been performed.

Assembly 8667340 is not used on any higher level assembly. Assembly 8595274 appears to be an older version of 8667340 and is used on 8635273.

Which assembly is correct?

Please disregard drawing 8595274. It has been replaced with drawing 8667340 within the EEA Assembly 8635273 as the correct and most recent

FPGA EEA CIRCUIT CARD ASSEMBLY. 8667340

should be used. Also, the GFI EEA Native file for 8595272 is also included as part of the GFI Gerber files.

8667340 is a circuit card assembly that doesn’t appear on a parts list. Is it extra?

Which version of the FPGA EEA CIRCUIT CARD ASSEMBLY should be used in the EEA ASSEMBLY?

Two versions were included in the TDP, Drawing numbers 8595274 Rev 0 and 8667340 Rev 0. The parts list for the EEA Assembly (PL8635273) Item 4, lists 8595274, but the drawing for 8595274 appears to be older and not as complete as 8667340. Also the GFI EEA Native files only include GERBER files for 8667341.

60 8595275 is missing pages 2-19. Are these available?

Please disregard drawing 8595275. It has been replaced with 8667341 which is also included in the TDP. 8667341 should be used .

In the EEA spec’, TSOB spec’ and QA spec’ #8595331 the term FIR (Functional Item Replacement) is defined as “Integrated Assembly” (CCA’s, Chassis, interconnects of one or more CCA’s). Is this interpreted next higher level assembly testing to be performed by the contractor?

The contractor is responsible for all FIR level testing and associated sub-component testing.

For the purpose of this contract, FIRs are EEAs and TSOB Kits. These must be tested in accordance with the SOW.

First Article Testing stated in Contract solicitation Line items 1 & 2 indicate that three assemblies of each EEA and TSOB will be processed.

a. The QA spec’ #8595331 specifies that DESTRUCTIVE “HASS Margin” and “HASS Proof of Life” testing will occur on samples. Are these samples to be obtained from the First article samples or are additional units required?

Proof of Life (POL) will be performed in accordance with 8595331. The contractor is responsible for POL testing. Margin testing is required in the event of design changes.

Additional units will be required for this testing as they will not be obtained from First Article units.

There is an ATE specified in the TSOB specification Fig 3.2-1. What does the ATE consist of? Will it be provided?

The ATE referred to in this figure is the MK 660.

The MK 660 is already included in Attachment 2 as available on a non-interference and rent-free basis as scheduled with the COR.

Drawing 8667154 calls out marking approximately as shown but does not show a location.

Drawing 8667154 will be updated. Note 9 will be removed from this drawing in the update.

PL8712674 calls out wire QTYs but does not say what the unit of measure is.

Parts list PL8712674 will be updated. The QTYs should actually be “As Required (AR)”.

8418147 section 3.9.2.3 refers to Medium Weight Shock Machine driven by spectra defined in confidential MK 48 Mod 7 Shock Spectra drawing 8243524. Will this document be provided?

This document will not be provided, however it will be available during contract execution on-site at NUWC if required.

Concerning the launch acceleration testing the test house is looking for clarification. These appear to be acceleration requirements. However, the durations are not common for typical acceleration testing performed on a centrifuge. We would be unable to meet the “rise time” of 300 ms. The durations for the other levels do not seem appropriate for acceleration testing as well. Our centrifuge will take several seconds to get up to speed and will take just as long to spin back down.

Due to the spin up and spin down time, a duration of 900 ms will be far exceeded.

The specification states that 300 mS is the minimum duration for being subjected to an initial jerk of 50 g/s. The specification does not state that the test must be performed using a centrifuge. An acceleration of 15 g for a duration of 900 mS is the minimum time, so exceeding the time the TSOB assembly would be subjected to 15 g would still meet this requirement.

TSOB CIPS 8418147 Section 4.1, Page-58 table indicates that MIL-STD-461 EMI testing (CE101, 101- 4, 102, RE102) are FAT tests, to be conducted on 100% of production units. Is this correct?

No, EMI testing should not be part of FAT (Factory Acceptance Test). TSOB CIPS 8418147 will be updated to remove EMI testing from FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) and add it to DVT (Developmental Verification Testing), which is not the contractor's responsibility.

Does the navy have the drawing for Cable part number 8712674? We have the parts list but no drawing.

The drawing 8712674 is located in the TSOB 8712668 folder and is already be part of the TDP.

Please confirm 11x17 fold-out pages are permitted and how many pages each counts against the page limits.

11x17 fold out pages are permitted and count as 2 pages.

Please confirm that Volume “front matter” (e.g.

Table of Contents, List of Figures) and Attachments (e.g. Glossary) are excluded from Volume page count. Yes, these are excluded from Volume page count.

B

Will the Government please provide the Option exercise periods for clauses 52.217-7, 52.217-8, and 52.217-9?

The Government will notify the Contractor within 30 days of First Article completion of the intent on exercising options. The Government will notify the Contractor within 30 days of prior production lot completion date.

What quantity for each of the Options should be assumed to establish the "total Contract value" identified in the Participation % formula?

For estimating purposes, the contractor shall use the "midpoint" quantity of 25 ea.

What is the Government's intent regarding payment frequency to the Contractor? Will the Government be utilzing progress payments or performance based payments?

The Government will consider Performance Based Payment requests prior to award

In Section L, the number of original, paper, and CD copies are identified for the Technical Proposal and the Cost/Price Proposal. Do the Pass/Fail Requirements, Small Business Participation and Past Performance Volumes included in the Technical Proposal? If not, how many copies should be

The copies are the same as what is stated for Technical proposal.

provided of each?

Should each of the proposal volumes be provided in separate bindings, including the Pass/Fail Requirements (6-pages) and the Small Business Participation (2-pages)? Is it acceptable to include Volumes 1-4 in a single 3-ring binder?

No, as long as the volumes are separately identifiable.

The Government has included FAR clauses 52.215- 10 "Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data", 52.215-12 "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data"and 52.215-20 "Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data". In additon, the Government has included the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data in Section L paragraph 4(a) Cost/Price. Will the Government please confirm that these clauses along with the requirement in Section L paragraph 4(a) are not applicable in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 (C)(1) due to the competitive nature of this acquisition and therefore the Contractor is not required to submit certified cost or pricing data for the purposes of proposal submission?

Clauses state certified Cost or Pricing data may be required.

The Government has included clause 5252.237- 9106 substitution of personnel in the RFP, however, neither sections L nor M discuss the submission of Key Personnel. Can the Government please indicate if the submission of Key Personnel is required? If so, can the Government please provide instructions on what information is required for submission and how the Contractor should submit the information as it relates to Key Personnel?

The Government does not require "key" personnel. However, if the Contractor assigns a key person, then the contractor must abide by FAR Clause 5252.237-9106

The Solicitation requires cost and pricing data, and the BOM is very large. Additionally, there are lots of test requirements that need to be analyzed. We would like to request a 2-week extension, or as much time as you see fit.

RFP has been extended

Is the Cost and Pricing data required for just the CPFF CLINs? Or is it also required for the FFP CLINs?

Cost and Pricing (C&P) data MAY be required. If it becomes necessary to obtain C&P data, the Contractor will be requested to submit such C&P data. The Government reserves the right to request Cost and Pricing Data for the both CPFF and FFP CLINs.

Regarding delivery or the proposal package. The SF33 Block-9 states that the proposal may be handcarried, and delivered to a "depository" located in Building 1258. Is there really such a Depository? If so, where in that building, exactly?

Of course we are talking about inside the building, and we are assuming we have access onto the base and into the building.

This is a contract form issue. There is no access to

BLDG 1258.

The FBO has an 18 July change labeled Amendment

2. The doc posted, however, is Amendment 1 which just changed the prop due date. Can you confirm that the only Amendment released so far is Amendment 1 and FBO is incorrect on the Amendment number? Also there were explicit access files that we are unable to access.

This correct Amendment number is listed in the RFP. FBO's "counter" no longer lines up with the contract writing system. The amendment for explicit access request was not uploaded properly.

The additional files, beyond what was provided in the Solicitation will be provided as soon as possible.

What do your terms ADC and AOE mean under the column Delivery Date?

ADC - After Date of Contract AOE - After Option Exercise

Can the Government please confirm that the Service Contract Act is not applicable to this solicitation

That is correct

The current structure of the pricing tables in the referenced Section UW L-2-0001, 4.0 Cost/Price pricing files does not accommodate range pricing requirements of CLINs 0003 – 0010. The RFP further prohibits the contractor from altering the pricing tables. Can the Government therefore confirm that the required pricing template only applies to CPFF CLINs 0011 – 0014

The pricing template is for CPFF CLINs only

Given the FFP nature of CLINs 0001 – 0010 is Supporting Documentation regarding labor estimates by labor category required for these CLINs?

Only CPFF CLINs require the labor estimates at this time.

The RFP includes both FAR 52.209-4 Alt 1 and also Alt 2. Which Alternate clause should the contractors follow

Clause AL1 deleted and ALT 2 edited.

The FBO notification for this opportunity states, “The resultant contract will be a five year contract expected to include Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) First Article units…”. However, the RFP Section B indicates the First Article Units (i.e., CLINs 0001 and 0002) are Firm Fixed Price (FFP). Please confirm whether CLINs 0001 and 0002 are CPFF or FFP

CLINs 0001 and 0002 are FFP

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0020 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0020 1 Each

TSOB UNIT TO SUPPORT PROOF OF LIFE

FFP

Fabricate and test TSOB unit in accordance with Specification Drawing 8595331.

NOTE: THIS UNIT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM FIRST ARTICLE

UNITS.

FOB: Origin (Shipping Point)

NET AMT

CLIN 0021 is added as follows:

0021 2 Each

OPTION TSOB UNITS TO SUPPORT MARGIN TESTING

FFP

Fabricate and test TSOB units in accordance with Specification Drawing 8595331.

NOTE: THESE UNITS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM FIRST

ARTICLE UNITS.

CLIN 0022 is added as follows:

0022 1 Each

EEA UNIT TO SUPPORT PROOF OF LIFE

FFP

Fabricate and test EEA unit in accordance with Specification Drawing 8595331.

NOTE: THIS UNIT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM FIRST ARTICLE

UNITS.

CLIN 0023 is added as follows:

0023 2 Each

OPTION EEA UNITS TO SUPPORT MARGIN TESTING

FFP

Fabricate and test EEA units in accordance with Specification Drawing 8595331.

NOTE: THESE UNITS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM FIRST

ARTICLE UNITS.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

1. BACKGROUND

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport (NAVUNSEAWARCENDIVNPT) located in Rhode

Island and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport located in Washington are responsible for supporting all life cycle phases of the Lightweight and Heavyweight Torpedo systems to include the requirements definition, design, development, integration and test of torpedo upgrades and automatic test equipment, weapon procurement and production support activities, torpedo performance analysis and operational readiness, and technical support for foreign military sales. In support of these activities, the facilities maintain corporate and scientific/engineering knowledge and specialized facilities for planning, developing, and conducting research, advanced development, production hardware assessment and operational systems development for all torpedo systems including export weapons.

The United States Navy maintains an active inventory of Mk48 Mod 6 and Mod 7 Heavyweight Torpedoes. The current Exercise Electronics Assembly (EEA) is used in the Fleet Exercise Section (FES) of the MK48 ADCAP Fleet

Exercise Configuration Torpedo. It is used for performing Launch Control and COMLINK Interface, maintaining safety, Exercise Control Function, measurement and data recording functions, run termination, operator interface, and data extraction, encryption, and recording. The Torpedo Swim Out Box (TSOB) is an assembly residing within the

Guidance and Control (G&C) section of the MK48 MOD 6AT torpedo. It provides necessary torpedo launch and control logic required to allow the torpedo to swim out of a torpedo tube (vs. impulse launch eject), yet retain all existing safety related functions and operational capabilities. The Undersea Weapons Program Office (PMS 404) is sponsoring the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport for the acquisition of EEAs and TSOBs.

2. SCOPE

This Statement of Work (SOW) sets forth the work efforts required by the contractor to address obsolescence and manufacturability issues, fabricate, assemble, test, inspect, package, and deliver First Article and Production

EEAs and TSOB Kits for the Mk48 Heavyweight Torpedoes. The EEAs and TSOB Kits shall be built in accordance with the build-to-print applicable documents 3.3.1 – 3.3.8. The contractor shall address component obsolescence and manufacturability issues with an equivalent fit, form, and function component.

The tasking per this contract shall include:

1. Program, Engineering and Quality Management

2. Preproduction – First Article

a. Technical Program Reviews

b. Integration, Qualification and IV&V Testing

c. Failure Analysis and Reporting

3. Production

a. Program Management Reviews

b. Material Procurement

c. Test Procedure

d. Test Execution and Reporting

e. Production Screening

f. Physical Configuration Audit

g. Failure Analysis and Reporting

2.1 SPONSORS

The Undersea Weapons Program Office (PMS 404) is sponsoring the Naval Undersea Warfare Center

Division Newport, Code 85, for the acquisition of EEAs and TSOBs.

2.2 FUNDING

This contract is funded using the following categories:

1. Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN)

2. Foreign Military Sales (FMS)

2.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Work will be performed at the Contractor's facility or other locations, as required by the statement of work. These sites may include, but are not limited to the following locations: Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)

Division, Newport, RI; NUWC Division, Keyport, WA.

3. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

To the extent referenced herein, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference. If no revision is indicated, the revision in effect on the date of contract award applies. In the event of a conflict between the documents referenced herein and the contents of this SOW, the contents of this SOW shall take precedence.

Documents and specifications provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) are identified in section 4.

3.1 Department of Defense Handbooks:

Applicable

Document #

Document Title

Date or

Revision

Paragraph #

3.1.1 MIL-HDBK-263 Electrostatic Discharge Control

Handbook

B 4.4.1

3.2 Department of Defense Standards:

3.2.1 MIL-STD-1521 Technical Reviews and Audits for

Systems, Equipments and Computer

Software

B 4.5.2

3.2.2 MIL-STD-1686 Electrostatic Discharge Control

Program for Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and

Equipment (Excluding Electronically

Initiated Explosive Devices)

C 4.4.1

3.3 Other Government Documents:

3.3.1 8418147 Critical Item Product Performance

Specification for Torpedo Swim Out Box (TSOB)

Assembly

C 4.0, 4.6.5

3.3.2 8712668 Torpedo Swim Out Box Assembly - 4.0

3.3.3 8712672 Cable Assembly, 203W101 - 4.0

3.3.4 8712673 Cable Assembly, 203W102 - 4.0

3.3.5 8712675 Cable Assembly, Adapter, TSOB - 4.0

3.3.6 8594967 Critical Item Product Fabrication

Specification for Exercise Electronics Assembly

(EEA)

- 4.0, 4.6.5

3.3.7 8635273 Exercise Electronics Assembly - 4.0

3.3.8 8595331 Manufacturing Quality Assurance

Specification, Torpedo Functional

Item Replacement

- 4.6.5

3.3.9 - Government Qualification

Acceptance Test Plan (QATP), Torpedo Swim Out Box (TSOB)

Draft 4.5.1

3.3.10 - Government Qualification

Acceptance Test Plan (QATP), Electronics Exercise Assembly(EEA)

Draft 4.5.1

3.3.11 - Torpedo Systems Department

Configuration

Management Plan

D 4.2

3.3.12 S0199-133-A-O-C Configuration Management Plan for

Undersea

Weapons and ASW Targets Programs

(PMS404)

D 4.2

3.3.13 TOR-2007(8583)-

6414, Volume 1

Technical Reviews and Audits for

Systems, Equipment, and Computer Software

1 4.5.2

3.4 Industry Documents:

3.4.1 ANSI/ISO/ASQ

9001-2008

Quality Management Systems -

Requirements

Standard

November

4.4

3.4.2 EIA-649-B Configuration Management Standard April

4.2

4.0 REQUIREMENTS

The work required shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable documents 3.3.1 – 3.3.8.

This SOW defines the requirements for the Torpedo Swim Out Box Kit and the Exercise Electronics Assembly

(applicable document 3.3.7) design and the requirements to address any obsolescence or manufacturability issues if any exist, followed by fabrication, assembly, test, inspection, packaging, and delivery of First Article and

Production hardware. The Torpedo Swim Out Box Kit consists of the Torpedo Swim Out Box Assembly (applicable document 3.3.2), Cable Assembly, 203W101 (applicable document 3.3.3), Cable Assembly, 203W102 (applicable document 3.3.4), and Cable Assembly, Adapter, TSOB (applicable document 3.3.5) The contractor shall fabricate, assemble, test, inspect, package, and deliver First Article and Production hardware in accordance with applicable documents 3.3.1 – 3.3.8. Gerber files will be provided as GFI. The Gerber files may not accurately reflect the applicable documents 3.3.1 – 3.3.8.

4.1 Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR)

The contractor shall prepare and deliver an Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) in accordance with

CDRL A001. The IPMR shall include the efforts of all activities, including all subcontractors and suppliers. The contractor shall identify Key Quality Indicators (KQI) with associated thresholds from section 4.4. The contractor shall provide an adequate rationale along with conducting investigation to determine the reason for noncompliance, if criteria from the list of quantitative metrics mentioned in section 4.4 are not met. This analysis shall include recommended forward and backward corrective actions. The contractor shall review applicable documents 3.3.1 – 3.3.8 and identify components with lead times in excess of three (3) months which are considered to be long lead materials. The contractor shall conduct Obsolescence Management to monitor and mitigate the effects of obsolescence. The activities recommended shall include last-time buys, life-time buys and obsolescence monitoring. The contractor shall supply an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) as part of the IPMR which shall include all program activities required for the performance of this contract. The contractor shall record progress against the IPMR on a monthly basis.

Deliverables: CDRL A001 – Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR)

4.2 Configuration Management

The contractor shall prepare and utilize a configuration management plan in accordance with the…