N6660423R01230008.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 for amendment details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 N6660423R0123

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Dec-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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.

U0008

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

17-Jan-2023

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

LEVI ANDREWS, CODE 0224

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841-1708

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6660423R0123

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SOLICITATION AMENDMENT 0008

The purpose of Solicitation Amendment 0008 is to answer industry questions as detailed below:

Question 16: Please clarify the solicitation closing date and time.

Answer 16: This solicitation closes on 27 January 2023 at 2:00PM Eastern Time.

Question 17: Upon review, drawing 254032 alone is insufficient to be able to thoroughly answer the Government's Hypothetical Problem #5. Without access to the entire TDP (CADD models, all subordinate drawings/documents, test requirements specifications) it is difficult to verify whether parts are producible from drawings, if all components are available or obsolete, whether we can meet a Government schedule, which components we can manufacture internally and when testing can be conducted. We will only be possible to speak in generalities using assumptions. Is this an acceptable approach?

Answer 17: The Hypothetical Problem requires only that the process and technical approach be described, not that the offeror actually perform a manufacturability or obsolescence analysis. When a task order is solicited, the government will provide all subordinate drawings of the part as of the last time it was manufactured. This may include solid models, 2 dimensional CAD, or PDF drawings. If testing is required by the task order, the Government will provide pass/fail values for all required tests. If the offeror needs to make assumptions about the contents of the TDP, state the assumptions clearly in your answer to the Hypothetical Problem.

Question 18: For Hypothetical Problem # 5, are CADD models for all parts available and up to date in accordance with the drawing revision? This is a key element assessing risk and schedule.

Answer 18: Due to the large number of parts on this contract, full solid models may not be available for all parts. When a task order is solicited, the government will provide all subordinate drawings of the part as of the last time it was manufactured. This may include solid models, 2 dimensional CAD, or PDF drawings.

Question 19: Request clarification of Hypothetical Problem #2. The Radio Frequency Amplifier (PN: 06829200) identified for this problem appears to be a component to be purchased directly from the suggested source specified on the drawing. The referenced drawing is a Vendor Item Control Drawing that provides detailed electrical, performance, mechanical, environmental and test requirements. It is assumed that the vendor part number shown on the drawing meets these requirements and that it is unnecessary for the offeror to repeat or validate the compliance if the vendor provides Certification of Compliance. Therefore, it is unclear how the offeror would describe their process for evaluating the engineering drawing to understand the requirements, describe the design process to ensure the designs meet the requirements, describe the process for selecting appropriate materials and subcomponents. Is this part typical of the Electrical & RF components expected to be purchased under this part category, or are there items such as Circuit Card Assemblies that would require significant re-design efforts to compensate for end-of-life and obsolete parts?

Answer 19: The Hypothetical Problem is asking how the offeror will produce the part described by the drawing that meets all requirements, including testing requirements, not actually design the component. If the offeror’s response is to procure the component from another source (including the suggested source of supply), this would be acceptable given the testing requirements are met (note 6) indicating satisfactory performance and all relevant certification and test documentation was provided. This part is typical of the Electrical & RF components expected to be purchased under this part category. Significant re-design efforts to compensate for end-of-life and obsolete parts are outside the scope of this RFP.

Question 20: This Hypothetical Problem #2 asks, “The Offeror shall describe, in detail, the process for the fabrication of a Radio Frequency Amplifier in accordance with drawing number 06829200.” The drawing furnished delineates a “suggested source of supply”. Our first choice on a build-to-print proposal would be to procure this component with all the essential documentation from the suggested source. Is the government asking if we can “re-design” this component using the available information on this drawing? This effort, as it relates to design, is outside the scope of this RFP (C.2.0). Did the government intend to ask about the offeror’s plan obsolescence mitigation per C.4.1.1? If this part is procured, it will be procured with certifications that it meets the drawing as well as the supporting test data. The offeror would have no need to perform any testing in this case. Will the government clarify Hypothetical Problem #2?

Answer 20: Hypothetical Problem # 2 is asking how the offeror will produce the part described by the drawing that meets all requirements, including testing requirements, not actually design the component. If the offeror’s response is to procure the component from another source (including the suggested source of supply), this would be acceptable given the testing requirements are met (note 6) indicating satisfactory performance and all relevant certification and test documentation was provided. Additional response regarding obsolescence per C.4.1.1 as part of the procurement approach will be considered.

Question 21: For Hypothetical Problem #1, do detailed test procedures exist for the functional testing of each of the potential spare components to be ordered? Since the functional performance of some items cannot be determined in a stand-alone test, will test beds of the applicable systems or assemblies be provided for operational performance measurements?

Answer 21: If testing is required by the task order, the Government will provide pass/fail values for all required tests as part of the TDP. The TDP for a specific part may have only basic requirements, a step by step test procedure, or cite a MIL standard test procedure to be completed. It is not expected that test beds or other equipment will be provided as Government Furnished Property.

Question 22: For Hypothetical Problem #2, do detailed test procedures exist for the functional testing of each of the potential spare components to be ordered? Since the functional performance of some items cannot be determined in a stand-alone test, will test beds of the applicable systems or assemblies be provided for operational performance measurements?

Answer 22: Test requirements are detailed in note 6 of the provided drawing. The offeror will be expected to test the completed unit in accordance with note 6 given the requirements on the drawing. No additional procedures will be provided. No higher-level system specific hardware is needed to perform any of the tests listed.

Question 23: For Hypothetical Problem # 5, do detailed test procedures exist for the functional testing of each of the potential spare components to be ordered? Since the functional performance of some items cannot be determined in a stand-alone test, will test beds of the applicable systems or assemblies be provided for operational performance measurements?

Answer 23: If testing is required by the task order, the Government will provide pass/fail values for all required tests as part of the TDP. The TDP for a specific part may have only basic requirements, a step by step test procedure, or cite a MIL standard test procedure to be completed. It is not expected that test beds or other equipment will be provided as Government Furnished Property.

Question 24: For Hypothetical Problem # 3, are CADD models available and up to date in accordance with the drawing revision?

Answer 24: When a task order is solicited, the government will provide all subordinate drawings of the part as of the last time it was manufactured. This may include solid models, 2 dimensional CAD, or PDF drawings. Due to the large number of parts on this contract, full solid models may not be available for all parts.

Question 25: For Hypothetical Problem # 3, is it realistic that there could be a requirement to build 100 pc of any of these mechanical parts? If so, which ones from the list provided?

Answer 25: This is an IDIQ contract and the Government may order any quantities within the scope and ceiling of the contract. The quantities presented in the Hypothetical Problem are examples only so that the offeror can describe any differences in their work processes for large versus small orders.

All Solicitation terms and conditions remain unchanged.

(End of Summary of Changes)