SUBSAFE_RFP_Q&A_27_Mar.pdf

SUBSAFE IDIQ RFP N6660419R0035 - Industry Questions and Responses Q&A Posting #2

Question

No.

Section Pg.No. Industry Questions/Recommendations NUWC Response

...We respectfully request an extension to the deadline for submission of questions to March 27, 2019. Additionally, to ensure proper incorporation of received responses into our submission we respectfully request an extension to the proposal submission deadline to April 3, 2019.

See RFP Amendment #1: An extension was granted to 3 April for proposal submission, and the question submittal period was extended to 27 March.

NOTE: This RFP Amendment #2 posting lifts the question submittal deadline. The proposal due date will remain 3 April

...Offeror respectfully requests a bid extension to the proposal submission requirement listed in Paragraph 2 by one week, from 2:00 PM EST on

Wednesday 27 March 2019 to 2:00 PM EST Wednesday 3 April 2019 to support providing a compliant proposal in accordance with any subsequent answers received from previously submitted requests for clarification.

See response to question #25

Offeror would like to respond to Solicitation N66604-19-R-0035 for

SUBSAFE Hardware and Engineering/Technical Services. Offeror is a small business which is currently producing various SUBSAFE and non-

SUBSAFE components for Virginia and Columbia class submarines and have manufactured prototype/R&D hardware previously. ...Offeror is very interested in providing hardware manufacturing for various supporting systems under an IDIQ award. Offeror currently has other critical manufacturing and proposal deliverables for various Virginia and Columbia-class hardware components underway and would like to respectfully request an extension for the due date for a response to this solicitation.

Offeror would like to request an extension until April 15, 2018.

An extension has been granted to 3 April.

TO ALL OFFERORS: Please review the PREREQUISITE REQUIREMENTS for this RFP on pages

95-96 of 102. 'To be eligible for contract award, an Offeror shall hold the required level of qualification(s) and clearance(s) stated.' These include: Being listed on the NAVSEA NOTICE

5000 dated 25 January 2019 as an activity qualified to perform SUBMARINE SAFETY (SUBSAFE) work; and possession of a SECRET Facility Clearance at proposal submission. 'No award will be made to an Offeror which does not have the qualification to perform SUBSAFE level work, as confirmed by NAVSEA NOTICE 5000. No award will be made to an Offeror which does not possess a facility security clearance with a level of safeguarding at a minimum SECRET level, as issued by the Defense Security Service, at time of proposal submission.'

If a contractor is interested in being a subcontractor for a Prime, the contractor is encouraged to list itself with contact information on the FedBizOpps Interested Vendor tab under the solicitation N66604-19-R-0035.

52.250-1 INDEMNIFICATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 (APR 1984)

and 52.250-1 INDEMNIFICATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 (APR

1984) - ALTERNATE I (APR 1984)

Offeror Recommendation: Due to the nature of the work as contemplated by this solicitation Offeror respectfully requests the inclusion of FAR 52.250-

1 INDEMNIFICATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 (APR 1984) within

Section I of the solicitation.

In conjunction with the aforementioned request for inclusion of 52.250-1

INDEMNIFICATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 (APR 1984) and 52.250-

1 INDEMNIFICATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 (APR 1984) -

ALTERNATE I (APR 1984), Offeror respectfully requests the inclusion of

52.252-4 ALTERATIONS IN CONTRACT (APR 1984) to state the following;

52.252-4 ALTERATIONS IN CONTRACT (APR 1984)

Portions of this contract are altered as follows:

1. Add the following as additional paragraph (j) to the clause FAR 52.250-1 entitled "INDEMNIFICATION

UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804" (APR 1984) and ALTERNATE I (APR

1984):

(j) For the purpose of this clause:

(1) "nuclear risks" are those risks attributable to the radioactive toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of "special nuclear material", "by-product material" or "source material, as such materials are defined in the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

29 I See response to question #28

28 I

Clause FAR 52.250-1 Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804 (APR 1984), its alternate, or an altered clause relating to this clause (see question #29) will not be included in the RFP or resulting contract(s).

Tasks awarded under this vehicle shall in every case EXCLUDE any direct technical work with the

Steam-Electric Plant, the Propulsion Plant, and all Nuclear Systems. No nuclear or nuclear related tasking, nor support system technical work within nuclear boundaries will be tasked or is anticipated under this vehicle.

(2) "unusually hazardous risks" are the risks of explosion, detonation, burning or propulsion attributable to the utilization of high energy propellants in (i) POLARIS, POSEIDON, TRIDENT or Tomahawk Cruise

Missiles, or of any component thereof, or (ii) propellant-powered POLARIS, POSEIDON, TRIDENT or Tomahawk Cruise test missiles or of any component thereof, or (iii) any other component or subcomponent of the POLARIS, POSEIDON, TRIDENT, or Tomahawk Cruise Missile weapons systems which uses high energy propellants".

(End of clause)

Offeor Recommendation: Due to the nature of the work as contemplated by this solicitation Offeror respectfully requests the inclusion of 52.252-4

ALTERATIONS IN CONTRACT (APR 1984) as related to clause FAR

52.250-1 entitled "INDEMNIFICATION

UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-804" (APR 1984) and ALTERNATE I (APR

1984)

30 I

Section I does not currently include FAR 52.250-1 including ALT I

(Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804). Contracting Officers have been granted authority by the Secretary of the Navy to include this Clause in Prime Contracts issued to Offeror for Fiscal Year 2019. Will the resultant contract include this clause?

See response to question #28

31 C. 26 Offeror requests UW C-2-0001 Cost and Performance Reporting (MAR

2017) be removed. Offeror’s accounting system does not support eCRAFT required submissions.

It is a requirement for contractors of all NUWCDIVNPT contracts with services components to utilize eCRAFT. Note wording in clause UW C-2-0001 "Compliance with this requirement is a material requirement of this contract."

32 G. 43-44

Offeror requests HQ G-2-0009 Supplemental Instructions Regarding

Invoicing (NAVSEA) (APR 2015) be removed. If unable to remove Offeror requests the following note to be added: Whereas all 'Offeror' cost reimbursement invoices are currently approved by DCAA or authorized

Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) Representative, for payment and the Contractor provides DCAA (or authorized ACO representative) full access to its relevant books and records; the intent of paragraph (a) is currently being met through existing Contractor processes and procedures.

Reporting is required at the stated level of the clause, so clause will remain and not be altered.

33 H 52-53 Offeror requests 5252.237-9106 Substitution of Personnel (SEP 1990) be removed.

The clause will remain, due to provision UW L-2-0001 Instruction to Offerors, Section 4.1 Factor 1 -

Personnel (page 97 of 102).

Section I does not currently include the following eleven standard clauses which were previously included on the N66604-10-D-034x contract. Will the resultant contract include the following clauses? Responses to each clause mentioned in Column D:

H41 Ordering Under A Multiple Award Contract (FEB 2004) No; H41 superseded by Ordering Under a Multiple Award Contract on pages 46-49

H71 Control of Technical Data (JUN 2002) No; H71 superseded by HQ C-1-0001, D-1-0001, D-2-0008

52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data OCT 1997 AUG 2011 version of clause will be added to RFP due to applicability at order level

52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money JUN 2003 Will be added

52.222-20 Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act DEC 1996 No, does not apply

52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards OCT 2008 Deviation 2018-O0015 to be added

52.230-6 Administration of Cost Accounting Standards MAR 2008 JUN 2010 version will be added

52.246-3 Inspection of Supplies Cost-Reimbursement MAY 2001 Located in RFP Section E (page 31)

52.246-23 Limitation of Liability FEB 1997 Will be added

52.246-24 Limitation of Liability-High Value Items FEB 1997 Will be added

52.246-25 Limitation of Liability-Services FEB 1997 Will be added

34 H & I

29 I See response to question #28

35 G 39-41

Offeror requests 252.232-7006 Wide Area Workflow Payment Instructions

(DEC 2018) include the following note: Invoices will be submitted in subcontractor’s standard format. Invoices will be produced and accepted by the Prime Contractor in accordance with the subcontractor’s approved

Automated Time and Attendance (AT&A) and Work in Process (WIIP) systems. The subcontractor’s AT&A system shall be utilized to substantiate actual labor hours incurred.

The clause will remain as is and not be altered

36 L 93

Paragraph 9 includes the Government’s best estimate of costs. The footnote states, offerors are to fill in the dollar estimates in the respective section B CLINs. Are the estimates the Government has provided strictly cost only or do the estimates include fee?

The estimates provided on page 93 include fee.

37 L 94

Paragraph 10 states fees are not allowed on Other Direct Costs/Travel Only

(CLIN 0004). Per FAR 31.205-46 Travel Costs, costs incurred by contractor personnel are allowable fee bearing costs. Contactor requests fee of 10% for travel as allowed by FAR.

Fee is not to be proposed on the ODC/Travel Only CLIN 0004 at the basic or order level.

38 L 95 & 98

Factor 3 – Cost/Price: Request clarification regarding publication requirements for Cost/Price. Page 95 limits the page count of Factor 3 –

Cost/Price to 2 pages. Page 98 requires the offeror to fill in proposed fee within the solicitation. However, in the Proposal Format table on pages 94

& 95, the executed solicitation is not required. Does the Government expect offerors to extract page 98 of the RFP and include it in the two page limit for Factor 3? Or does the Government expect a copy of the executed

RFP in our response, and if so, where should it be included? Additionally, if the executed RFP is required, is there a change to Factor 3’s publication requirements?

The Offeror is to submit a filled-in provision UW L-2-0001 Section 5.0 (page 98) with its proposal. In addition, the Section B CLINs are to be submitted with total values (per table on page 93). Offerors may reformat information so submittals are within the 2-page limit as stated on page 95.

39 L 94-95 Does the Government expect a Table of Contents, glossary, etc. for each proposal volume? If so, are these exempt from the page count?

A Table of Contents and glossary are not necessary.

40 M 100

Request additional information regarding the acceptance criteria for the

Personnel Clearance Plan. Current incumbents maintain active facilities with security clearances and have the requisite practices/processes to maintain a work force consisting of cleared personnel. Is there a specific element of the Personnel Clearance Plan that will determine acceptability or unacceptability that goes beyond the accepted practices of the incumbents?

There are no specific elements other than Offeror's ability to receive and maintain clearances for its personnel. Acceptablle practices are appropriate and sufficient

41 L 101

Item 5.0 Factor 3 – Cost Price

Offeror Comment: The contractor does not understand the Government’s response to previously submitted question. The Government previously stated that “Fee is to be proposed for CPFF CLINs 001 and 003, CLIN 0002 is FFP.” Follow on question: is it the Governments intent that any fee associated with an FFP order will be negotiated at the ordering level and as such need not be specified in the contractors response to this solicitation?

For the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN 0002, there is no fee breakout at the basic or order level.

42 B 7

HQ B-2-0015, Payment of Fee(s) (Level of Effort) (Alternate I) (NAVSEA)

(MAY 2010)

Offeror Recommendation: Removal of clause HQ B-2-0015, Payment of

Fee(s) (Level of Effort) (Alternate I) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010) and inserting

PAYMENTS OF FEES (LEVEL-OF-EFFORT) (NAVSEA) (MAY 1993), as this clause is typically found in our Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Level-of-Efforts contracts.

The clause HQ B-2-0015 Payment of Fee(s) (Level of Effort - Alternate I) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010) will remain since fee is to be paid on hours incurred basis

43 I FAR 52.246-23, Limitation of Liability

Offeror Recommendation: As the contract will require the contractor to deliver material and supplies the contractor respectfully requests the inclusion of FAR 52.246-23, Limitation of Liability

See responses to question #34. In addition, the following will be added: FAR 52.215-8 Order of

Precedence - Uniform Contract Format, 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government

(Fixed-Price), 52.249-6 Termination (Cost Reimbursement), 52.249-8 Default (Fixed-Price Supply and

Service), 52.249-9 (Default (Fixed-Price Research and Development), 52.232-18 Availability of Funds, 252.204-7004 Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, the FEB 2019 version of 252.247-7023

Transportation of Supplies by Sea, and 252.251-7000 Ordering from Government Supply Source

44 I

FAR 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability – High Value Items

Offeror Recommendation: As the contract has the potential for the contractor to deliver high value items the contractor respectfully requests the inclusion of FAR 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability – High Value Items.

Additionally, as the high value items will be identified at the tasking level, request the inclusion of the following note to the aforementioned clause; “

High Value Items to be identified at the task order level if applicable.”

See response to question #43

45 I

DFARS 252.227-7038, Patent Rights – Ownership by the Contractor (Large

Businesses)

Offeror Recommendation: The contractor respectfully requests the deletion of the DFARS 252.227-7038, Patent Rights – Ownership by the

Contractor (Large Businesses). As the aforementioned clause is only to be used in contracts for experimental, developmental, or research work that meet certain criteria identified in the prescription it is not applicable in this instance.

Clause DFARS 252.227-7038 will be deleted. In addition, the following current RFP clauses will be deleted: FAR 52.248-1 Value Engineering, 52.245-1 Alt I, 52.248-1 Alt III, and the following 3 are in

Section E so are being deleted in Section I: FAR 52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies - Fixed Price, 52.246-

15 Certificate of Conformance, and 52.246-16 Responsibility For Supplies

46 I DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources

Offeror Recommendation: Adding this clause. The inclusion of this clause and written authorization is needed if Government’s intention is for

Offeror to utilize the Governments supply sources

See response to question #43

47 C Access To The Navy Supply System (NAVSEA) (Mar 2011)

Offeror Recommendation: Adding this clause.

Clause HQ C-2-0003 Access to the Navy Supply System (NAVSEA) (MAR 2011) will be added

48 K

DFARS 252.209-7002, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign

Government

Offeror Recommendation: Deleting clause. Per DFARS 209.104-70, DFARS 252.209-7002 should not be separately listed if the solicitation includes the provision at FAR 52.204-7. FAR 52.204-7 is incorporated by reference in Section L.

DFARS 252.209-7002 is required, however will be removed from provision 252.204-7007 (page 86) since FAR 52.204-7 is in RFP Section L (in accordance with DFARS 209.104-70). Note: DFARS

252.225-7031 Secondary Arab Boycott of Israel is also required, but is covered by FAR 52.204-7.

Appendix A, Sections

4.4.3.e &

4.4.8.b.6, Page 15, 17;

Appendix F, Sections

4.3.1.5, 4.3.1.6, &

4.3.1.7, Page

O-Ring Package Retention and Documentation: Appendixes A and F require the retention of documented results of visual inspection, cure date, shelf life expiration, manufacturer information (Appendix F, specifically) and individual O-ring packages (which may not be available if bought in bulk).

Please provide clarification on this requirement. Is there a higher tier document driving this requirement or is this a unique NUWC requirement?

Neither the SSRM or SSGRAMs require this documentation for OQE certification. Additionally, if the o-rings are bought in bulk, please provide direction on expectations for the “individual o-ring packages.”

Of note, this requirement would incur higher cost for NUWC with no higher degree of reasonable assurance.

Appendix A & F Section 3 states - Requirements (per SEA 06P Letter, Ser 06/026, 19 June 2015).

This is the higher-level requirement invoked by SEA 06P on Warfare Centers.

WRT Section 4

Appendix A;

- Para 4.1 states, The following information provides amplifying detail and aids to clarify the requirements established in Section 3. These specific procedure requirements are necessary to ensure the Certifying Activity has adequate information to support Level I certification.

- Para 4.3 states, Contractor Inspection System Requirements - The contractor shall furnish the following specific procedures to the Certifying Activity (CA) prior to production, when required.

Appendix F; Para 4.1., same as Appendix A.

These requirements are based on the Certifying Activities (CA) requirements.

Specifically, if NSWC-PD is the designated CA, the cited sections are IAW NSWC-PD procedures to support certification. If a different activity is the CA, then the NSWC-PD requirements are not required.

Appendix F, Section 4.3.2, Verification of SMIC Q5 Material: Appendix F requires Verification of

Dimensions via COC that dimensions, threads, angles, and finishes comply with drawing spec for Non-level SUBSAFE boundary material (SMIC Q5).

Please provide clarification on this requirement. Is there a higher tier document driving this requirement or is this a unique NUWC requirement?

Same convention as response to question #49

Appendix F, Section 4.4.1, Material Control: Appendix F requires “Storage areas and container for

SUBSAFE Boundary Material shall be distinctly identified and marked.”

This applies to SMIC Q5, same as Question above [#49].

Please provide clarification on this requirement. Is there a higher tier document driving this requirement or is this a unique NUWC requirement?

Same convention as response to question #49

52 ATT 4 DD254

Per the DD254, Block 10k, the solicitation requires access to SIPRNET. Is this requirement for access to SIPRNET at the Contractor facility or at the

Government facility? If at the Contractor facility, would the Government assist contractors with establishing access?

If an order tasking requires access to SIPRNET, the Offeror will access it via a Government facility.

Having SIPRNET capability at the Offeror's facility will not be necessary

DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #3 first statement “Personnel designated as derivative classifiers shall receive derivative classification training prior to access from the contractors Facility Security Officer (FSO). The FSO shall ensure personnel receive initial and biennial training during the life of this contract. Evidence of completion, training certificates or equivalent, shall be provided to the Information Assurance Manager no later than the individual's due date.” Offeror will handle training records as directed by the Cognizant Security Agency

Offeror Recommendation: Request NUWC concurrence

55 Attach. 4 DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #3 comment 11(j) (1), Offeror request a copy of the NUWCDIVNPT Critical Information List for review.

All validated award DD254s will have CIL as a baseline attachment

53 Attach. 4

DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #2 provides no security classification guidance but contends to include them upon award of contract. Offeror

Security will need response now for solicitation review.

Security Language is included on all solicitation or award DD254s, see Block 13. Note: The information in Block 13 depends upon the boxes checked in Blocks 10 and 11

54 Attach. 4 NUWC Security concurs. Note: Recently released (31 Jan 2019), SIPR/NATO access now requires proof of annual Derivitative Classification training

DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #3 comment 11(j)(4), Offeror will enlist the security controls of NIST 800-171 for Intra-Office communications and electronic emails containing NUWCDIVNPT’s CI.

Offeror Recommendation: Request NUWC concurrence

DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #3 comment 11(j)(7), Offeror will make classified incident reports per NISPOM requirements

Offeror Recommendation: Request NUWC concurrence

58 Attach. 4

DD Form 254 Block 13 Page #4, list of attachments are unavailable for review, please provide [NUWCDIVNPT CIL.pdf and NUWCDIVNPTINST

3070.IB Operations Security.pdf]

The referenced attachments may be provided upon award

59 Attach. 4 DD Form 254 Block 4. Page #1, Please mark “No” as Offeror does not consider this solicitation to be a proposed “Follow-on” Contract.

NUWCDIVNPT considers this a follow-on contract to N66604-10-D-034A/B/C, no change required

57 Attach. 4 NUWC Security concurs. Per standard statements in Block 13, all incidents are to be reported to personnel identified in Block 17

56 Attach. 4 NUWC Security concurs