N6660425R0006_QA20250312.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Radio Frequency Distribution and Control Systems (RFDACS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N6660425R0006
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document for a Naval contract solicitation (N6660425R0006) for Radio Frequency Distribution and Control Systems (RFDACS) units and subcomponents. The solicitation involves a multiple award contract (MAC) with tasks under both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract line items (CLINs), primarily focused on hardware production, engineering services, and technical documentation. Key details include a proposal deadline of March 21, 2025, at 1400 EST, with the government indicating that specific pricing, testing requirements, and task order details will be determined at the individual order level.
The Q&A document reveals several important clarifications, including that the government will provide changes to the Technical Data Package to all MAC holders, handle non-conformance and design issues on a case-by-case basis, and not provide additional Government Furnished Property (GFP) beyond the initially specified items. The contract involves hardware production for RFDACS OK-700 system parts, with the government emphasizing a build-to-print requirement and no specified manufacturer. Amendments are expected to address inconsistencies in section references, subcontractor definitions, and to formally extend the proposal deadline.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6660425R00060003.pdf | ||
| N6660425R00060002.pdf | ||
| N6660425R0006_QA20250226_rev1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6660425R0006_QA20250226.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6660425R0006-0001.pdf | ||
| N6660425R0006_QA.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFDACS CDRLs Redacted.pdf | ||
| N6660425R0006.pdf | ||
| Att_1_GFP.pdf | ||
| Att_2_PRST.pdf | ||
| Att_3_List_of_Approved_Key_Personnel.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Date Posted | Question # | Question | Answer | Color Coding System |
| 2/24/25 | 1 | Will the Government provide their rationale for not including SOW paragraph 4.2 with the CPFF tasking in 4.3? Is the expectation that the government will issue individual task orders to support SOW paragraph 4.2 which is associated with Section B Item No 003. | It is the Government's determination that the tasking associated with SOW paragraph 4.2 is best suited for FFP. Individual orders will be placed to support that tasking. | Updated Answer |
| 2/24/25 | 2 | RFP SOW language anticipates post award product/drawing changes. What will be the Government's process for sharing post award change with all MAC holders to ensure a fair Task Order competition? | All changes to the TDP will be provided to all MAC holders. | New questions being answered |
| 2/24/25 | 3 | SOW paragraph 4.3.2 states that “Upon receipt of a TI, the contractor shall draft test plans and procedures for RFDACS units and subcomponents to validate functionality and compatibility for Government review. Upon Government approval of the test plan and procedures, the contractor shall conduct testing of RFDACS units and components.” Is it the Government’s intent that as a part of this paragraph the contractor executing on a TI in this scenario will be conducting acceptance testing on other MAC holders deliverables? | No | |
| 2/24/25 | 4 | SOW section 4.1.4 Non-Conformance states that “the contractor shall repair or replace the non-conforming material at no cost to the Government” and that “the contractor shall submit a Request for Variance if a design issue is identified as part of the failure analysis.” How does the government intend to handle incurred costs associated with the investigation when the root cause of the non-conformance is found be solely related to that design issue? | Non conformance is measured against the design. If it's a design issue - that would be handled separately. | |
| 2/24/25 | 5 | If contractors discover obsolete parts during their execution of FFP tasking under SOW sections 4.1, does the Government intend on supplying CPFF funds under SOW Section 4.3 to the same contractor to support procuring and developing alternate parts for Government review and testing? If not, how does the Government intend to handle the potential of a contractor executing a 4.1 production task being delayed while awaiting for another contractor being tasked to resolve an issue under a CPFF task? | No - The handling of obsolete parts will be determined on a case by case basis at the order level. | |
| 2/24/25 | 6 | Will the Government provide clarification as to what will qualify as a “sub-component” under SOW paragraph 4.1.2 and if CDRL A002 (Test Reports) are required for all subcomponents? | Testing requirements will be provided with the RFQ at the order level. | |
| 2/24/25 | 7 | The ordering process provided in the RFP does not include a formal process for providing MAC awardees a forcast for upcoming Task Order/Delivery Order RFPs. Can the Government provide the projected number of Task Order/Delivery Order RFPs per year? | The Government does not have that information at this time. | |
| 2/24/25 | 8 | The ordering process provided in the RFP does not include a formal process for notifying unsuccessful Offeror's after an award has been made on a Task Order/Delivery Order. Will the Government establish a formal process for notifying unsuccessful Offeror's when an award is made on a Task Order/Delivery Order? | Offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR 5.301. | |
| 2/24/25 | 9 | Will the Government incorporate FAR Clause 52.232-16 Progress Payments into the contract given the complexity and long production time for many of the tasks in the SOW? | Progress payments are not applicable to this contract. | |
| 2/24/25 | 10 | FAR clause 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) is included in the RFP, requiring Offeror's to submit a total compensation plan as part of their proposal. Will the Government clarify which volume, and where within the volume, the total compensation plan is to be inserted? | This will be evaluated at the order level. The Government is not requesting offerors submit compensation plans at this time. | |
| 2/24/25 | 11 | DFARS clause 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist is included in the RFP, requiring Offeror's to submit a checklist that focuses on an Offeror's pricing. Will the Government confirm if the checklist is required for submittal of the basic contract proposal submission due on March 7, 2025, or if the checklist is required for future Task Order/Delivery Order proposal submissions given no pricing is required for the basic contract proposal and the Note at the bottom of page 104 states, "A complete cost/price analysis will be completed at the task order levels."? | The Government is not requesting pricing information at the basic level. All pricing information will be evaluated at the order level. | |
| 2/24/25 | 12 | Will the Government confirm if this clause is applicable for the basic contract proposal submission due on March 7, 2025, if it is applicable to future Task Order/Delivery Order proposal submissions, or not applicable to either given CLINs 0006 CDRLs-Related to FFP Tasking and Hardware and 0007 CDRLs-Related to CPFF Tasking are Not Separately Priced. | Information provided in response to the requirement at Text L-215-H004 is required for the Contractor’s estimated total price of each data item for informational purposes and should be included in offerors proposals as part of Volume IV – Solicitation Fill-Ins. No additional supporting documentation is required for CDRL pricing, as these are Not Separately Priced in Section B. | |
| 2/24/25 | 13 | Cover letter instructions (3) states "…and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item." Will the Governement clarify if this statement is required in the cover letter given section 5.0 Cost/Price (Factor 3) states, "NOTE: SECTION B VALUES DO NOT NEED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR." | An amendment will be forthcoming to remove "upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item". | |
| 2/24/25 | 14 | Section B Item No 0002 states: |
"RFDACS Hardware and Subcomponents
FFP
Radio Frequency Distribution and Control Systems (RFDACS) OK-700 system and system parts in accordance with Technical Data Package (TDP), Spare Parts Drawings, and Statement of Work section 4.1 and 4.3 in Section C, as specified by issuance of individual orders during ordering period"
However, Page 10 of the solicitation document states "SOW tasks 4.3 will be performed on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) basis, upon issuance of a task order and Technical Instruction (TI)."
| Does the government intend to award SOW Section 4.3 tasking under both the FFP and CPFF CLINs? | An amendment will be forthcoming to correct CLIN 0002 to remove reference to SOW task 4.3. | ||
| 2/24/25 | 15 | Section B Item No 006 states "Contractor Data Requirements List FFP" and Item No 0007 states "Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) FFP" |
However Section L - Instructions to Offerors Ordering Period Table (page 92) states that CLIN006 is for CDRLs related to FFP tasking, CLIN007 is for CDRLs related to CPFF tasking, and CLIN008 is for Contractor Acquired Property.
| Can the Government clarify the inconsistency between Section B and Section L? | An amendment will be forthcoming to update Section L to make CDRLs CLIN 0006, CAP as CLIN 0007 and remove reference to CLIN 0008. | ||
| 2/24/25 | 16 | Section B Item No 0007 states "Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) FFP" | |
| However, there are no details for the purposes of this CLIN and there are no references to the Statement of Work. Can the Government clarify their intent with this CLIN? | Material purchased under CLIN 0005 (Other Direct Costs) become Contractor Acquired Property upon completion of the contract and should be tracked as such. | ||
| 2/24/25 | 17 | Section L subsection 3.1.1 states "Describe any subcontractors that would be used in fabrication or assembly of this unit." and "Include all |
equipment, whether at your facility or a subcontractor, which would be used to perform the vibration screen."
Section L subsection 3.1.2 states "Assume you are using a subvendor to produce the Omni Generator CCA (06974077-1). How will you verify the subvendor is delivering a part which conforms to the TDP?"
| Please provide a clear definition of Subcontractor vs. Subvendor. | An amendement will be forthcoming to reflect subvendor in both 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. | |||
| 2/24/25 | 18 | SOW Section 4.1.2 states "The contractor shall notify the Government, via email, upon discovery of any drawing errors or discrepancies. The contractor shall propose changes to RFDACS drawings and technical documentation to resolve the errors or discrepancies." and has CDRL A003 – DI-MISC-80750, Technical Data Package Review Report as a deliverable. As SOW Section 4.1 is for an FFP CLIN, how does the Government expect to compensate contractors for unexpected post award change. Will an REA process be used or does the Government intend to add the Engineering Services CLIN? | That will be determined on a case by case basis. | |
| 2/24/25 | 19 | Attachment 1 - GFP indicates that the Government is going to be providing a Unit 1 Computer and OE-538 Simulator to all contractors in support of testing units and subcomponents. However, in reviewing the Applicable Documents provided under SOW Section 3.0, additional test equipment is called out in each of the 3.2 Test Procedures. Does the Government intend on providing additional GFP at the Task Order/Delivery Order level to support the test requirements for that order? | The Government does not intend to provide additional GFP at this time. | |
| 2/24/25 | 20 | Request that a 3 week extension be granted after receipt of answers to questions. | A three week extension is not being granted at this time. | |
| 2/26/25 | 21 | Please provide the name of the manufacturer. | This is a build to print requirement. There is no specified manufacturer. | |
| 2/26/25 | 22 | Will the Government clarify how non-conformances due to design issues will be "handled seperately"? Is the intent of the Government to issue a FFP Delivery Order for non-conformances that are related to design issues or would the Offerer be responsible for submitting a Request for Equitable Adjustment in accordance with FAR clauses 52.243-2 Changes - Fixed Price? | Non-conformance is a separate issue from design. If the offeror delivers a product that meets the requirements of the design then that is not considered non-conformance. | |
| 2/26/25 | 23 | In the case that a drawing error is impacting the contractors ability to either fabricate, assemble or test a component would the Government issue a CPFF Delivery order to the contractor to resolve an issue with the Government controlled Technical Data Pacakge? | See previous response to Question #18. | |
| 2/26/25 | 24 | Will the Government provide a one week extension to the proposal deadline, making the new submission due date Friday, March 14, 2025, in order to allow Offeror's time to incorporate the answers to questions into a compliant RFP response? | An amendment will be forthcoming to allow for a one-week extension. The RFP closing date will be updated to March 14th at 1400 EST. | |
| 2/26/25 | 25 | Will the Government clarify their intent under FAR clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts (JUN 2020) paragraph (d) on page 63 of N6660425R0006? The sentence added under this paragraph in the solicitation does not indicate if there is a consent requirement or if the requirement would be for a particular type of subcontract (e.g., any subcontractor providing cost plus fixed fee services). | Per FAR 52.244-2, subcontractor(s) will be determined at the delivery/task order level. | |
| 2/26/25 | 26 | Based on the Governement's response to question number 8, will the Government clarify if award notices will be provided only for awards above $250,000 and via SAM.gov? | Offerors will be notified in accordance with FAR 5.301. | |
| 2/26/25 | 27 | All but one CDRL, A0005 Request for Variance, provided under CLIN 0006 is applicable to either CLIN 0004 Engineering Services or CLIN 0005 Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Will the Government remove the requirement to provide data in accordance with L-215-H004 given Offeror's do not know the quantities of deliverables for which Engineering Services nor ODCs will be required at this time? Per G-216-H003 Ordering Process for Multiple Award Contracts (MACS) ( NAVSEA) (FEB 2024) on page 45 of N6660425R0006, "In the event of any inconsistency between any order and this contract, this contract shall take precedence." Therefore, the values provided at this stage, for informational purposes, would take precedence to any values provided at the task/delivery order level, and could result in a conflict during contract execution once the exact level of effort is known. Given the the Government's answer to Question 8, the exact level of effort is unknown at this time and having offeror's provide this data at the base contract level could lead to conflict during DO execution. If the Government chooses to retain the requirement, please clarify if the CDRL fill-ins should be provided in Volume I Administrative or Volumne V Factor 3 - Cost/Price as Volume IV is Factor 2 - Past Performance. | CDRLs are Not Separately Priced. The contractor is required to fill the CDRL in as such based on the requirement in L-215-H004. | |
| 2/26/25 | 28 | Section L, Note 7, on page 92 of N6660425R0006, lists the estimated amount of CLIN 0002 RFDACS Hardware and Subcomponents (FFP) as $44,454,650 over the 5 year life of the contract. In some cases, industry partners executing against this CLIN will be required to incur costs and pay suppliers 12 to 15 months prior to receiving payment from the Government given the time between receiving, and paying for, parts from the vendor and delivering the final product to the Government. This payment structure results in a cash burden for the Offeror. Will the Government reconsider their rejection to incorporate FAR Clasue 52.232-16 Progress Payments into the contract or alternatively consider adding FAR 52.232-32 Performance-Based Payments, given there are other contracts being executed by the Government that are of similar size and complexity that include provisions for progress/performance-based payments. | Progress payments will not be added to this contract. | |
| 3/12/25 | 29 | Request that a 2 week extension be granted. | An amendment will be forthcoming to grant a one week extension. The closing date will be 3/21/2025 at 1400 EST. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .