Questions_and_Answers_for_Ballistic_Shield_Solicitation_15A00018R00000091_Amendment_7.pdf

Questions and Answers for Solicitation 15A00018R00000091

Amendment #1

(1) QUESTION:

Is this to be Hard or Soft Armor?

ANSWER:

Solicitation lists the material, it is to be made of (polycarbonate laminate) which is hard. It is “NOT” to be made of soft ballistics like a ballistic blanket.

(2) QUESTION:

Handle Placement?

The handle placement is up to the vendor. ATF doesn’t want to dictate the placement because the use of different style handles could result in the need to place the handle on different locations of the shield for balance issues. Some shields may need to be centered while others may necessitate placement off center.

(3) QUESTION:

The 9.5” x 24” x >1.5” shields seem very thin and long, is there an image that you can provide me or anything of reference.

ATF does not have an image that is available.

(4) QUESTION:

Type of bullet for testing

ATF will be shooting the shields with the Federal American Eagle .44 cal magnum Jacketed Hollow Point, 240 grain

(5) QUESTION:

The ballistic shield that must be sent in by the contractor for testing which sample should it be in regards to size.

As long as the shield being sent in by the contractor is one of the sizes requested in the solicitation, it doesn’t matter which one. NOTE: (24 x 12 is now the only sample that will be accepted see answer #12)

Amendment #2

(6) QUESTION:

What the intended use of the 9 ½” x 24”shield. The shield offers very little coverage and I want to make sure the appropriate protection is offered to the intended user.

The requirement of the shield is based on the agency requested purpose.

(7) QUESTION:

We do not see anything about a handle being specified for the other shields and we are curious if they would like a mount or some type of grommet to help them wield the shield.

All three (3) shields need handles. If specific details, it is up to the discretion of the contractor to place the handle on the shield that is best suited for that specific shield.

(Updated answer from previous posting) “Shield mounts are not required and offerors are reminded that award will be made to the lowest priced proposal which is determined to be technically acceptable based upon the requirements stated in the solicitation. Features or add-ons which exceed the minimum requirements for technical acceptability do not increase an offeror’s chances for award”.

NOTE: The second part of this answer is now Best Value Tradeoff see answer #13.

(8) QUESTION:

Please provide all the information or details you have for this Bid

There are no additional details to provide.

Amendment #3

Extended the solicitation 15A00018R00000091 to September 21st, 2018 3:00 PM EST

Amendment #4

(9) QUESTION:

The solicitation appears to be focused towards one particular vendor, with shield sizes exactly matching sizes on their website. Is this the case?

No. ATF is not focused toward any particular vendor. AFT will consider any vendor in our best value determination that can manufacture ballistic shields that meet our agency’s technical specifications, including size, all of which are based on the tactical and safety needs of each participating agency.

(10) QUESTION:

If this is not the case, then can other vendors be allowed additional time to manufacture shields to the requirement and submit them for evaluation? Other vendors may not have the required sizes in stock to ship in the timeframe stated in the solicitation.

Solicitation 15A00018R00000091 was extended to September 21st, 2018 3:00 PM EST

(11) QUESTION:

Why does the material have to be polycarbonate? Would other transparent materials which offer the required ballistic protection, weight and visibility not be suitable? Can you explain the government’s requirement to only accept polycarbonate please?

Polycarbonate was the clear material ATF found through our testing and market research that provided sufficient ballistic protection. It was also listed as a common material used in the manufacture of clear ballistic material through internet searches. Polycarbonate or similar type clear material may now be used.

(12) QUESTION:

Does each vendor need to submit one ballistic shield at their own expense at the same time as their proposal, or will proposals be evaluated and then requests made for ballistic shields from compliant / acceptable proposals?

I ask as the sizes you specify are not that common and may need to be specially made. This process may take weeks (16) and therefore would prevent an otherwise compliant company from bidding due to not having the exact size in stock and ready to ship.

Each contractor must submit at time of proposal a sample for testing purposes ONLY in the size of 24 X 12 rectangle shaped shield. NOTE: This answer is replacing Answer #5.

The other two (2) sizes must be available from the contractor for delivery after award. The shields MUST use polycarbonate or similar type clear material which provides the same ballistic protection. Part of the evaluation is to determine the effective use of the shield in our tactical package. Shields of different sizes and shapes would not be fair to test and evaluate equally. The solicitation 15A00018R00000091 was extended to September 21st, 2018 3:00 PM EST which the Government feels is more than adequate for a contractor to submit the shield required for testing.

(13) QUESTION:

With the change away from LPTA, how will the shields be evaluated? Will a best value method will be used? What criteria will they be evaluated on, with what scoring and what weighting? i.e. is cost more important to the government than ability to stop projectiles in excess of magnum .44? Is weight more important than cost (i.e. lighter is better than cheaper) Is handle placement going to be an evaluated criteria? Currently there is not a specified requirement for handle placement and I do not wish to be ‘marked down’ on a handle placement selection when that handle can be placed wherever the government would like it. I do not know how the ATF intends to use the shields and therefore it is difficult to make handle placements with certainty. Is there an evaluation and scoring matrix that bidders can see so that we are prepare our bids accordingly?

See final updated version in Section M. The evaluation will include the testing listed. Cost will not be the most important. NOTE: This answer is replacing the second part of Answer #7.

Handle placement will be a factor in the overall evaluation. ATF will be relying on the contractor’s expertise as a manufacturer of this product to provide a sample they believe to be the best version of their product. Some of the variables but not limited to could be ease of use, grip, angle, balance, weight, if it interferes with the operation of a light. An evaluation and scoring matrix that bidders can see so that we are prepare our bids will not be provided.

(14) QUESTION:

Can vendors attend the evaluation portion of the contact if requested?

ATF have no intention of any contractor being at any of the evaluation process. All of the contractors may not be able to attend testing and therefore ATF does not want to give the impression that unfair influence may have been involved in the selection process by vendors being present. Some of the process will be conducted by agents in the field during the course of their duties. Additionally, as ATF does not own or control any of the live fire ranges we utilize, therefore ATF will not assume the responsibility of bringing civilians onto ranges that are not ours, nor will ATF attempt to gain any security clearances for civilians at these locations. ATF will not conduct any testing of ballistic items used by agents at a public facility.

Amendment #5

(15) QUESTION:

I realize you have addressed this issue already as far has handles on the shields. However, the measurements of the 12” x 24” and 24”x 12” are virtually both of the same, unless you are seeking a longer vs rectangle shield?

The shield requested by ATF is 24 inches long by 12 inches wide.

(16) QUESTION:

In Line Item’s 3, 6, and 9 it indicates:

24 inches in length with the width being 12 inches above the placement of the handle and 9 inches in width below the placement of the handle. ATF will allow a variance of 1/2 inch to each measurement and width.

Can you please explain the handle position or positions? Is the ATF seeking 2 handles or one on this shield?

ANSWER:

See answer to question 2 on Questions and Answers for Solicitation # 15A00018R00000091.

ATF is not requesting more than one handle on any shield, however if the vendor believes there is an advantage to their product having more than one handle the vendor can install more handles as the vendor deems necessary.

(17) QUESTION:

I have the idea of handle placement on the 12” x 24” but I do not understand the position on the 24” x 12” shield in question, please explain.

The shield requested by ATF is 24 inches long by 12 inches wide.

(18) QUESTION:

I still don’t understand the relative importance of each factor under assessment though (15.101-1 (b)(1)). From reading below, it appears the factors are as follows: (Summarized):

• Ability to stop a .44 magnum (additional question; does the government see any advantage to stopping rounds of larger caliber or higher velocity?)

• Ability to withstand spidering

• Construction integrity

• Resistance to scratching, yellowing etc

• Shield bond integrity

• Components

• Functionality in use

• Weight

• Handle placement

The solicitation does not explain the relative importance of each of these factors against each other. i.e. which is most important, which is least important, ranking the factors in order of importance, which are equally important etc. We want to ensure we provide the best value bid to the government so understanding the importance of each factor is very helpful in allowing us to do this.

All the elements are all part of the overall technical factor and are not individually rated, each of the elements are not rated individually. The elements listed in the SOW constitute the technical factor and aren’t separately rated. As stated in the updated Section M of the solicitation 15A00018R00000091: The Government most important factor for this Best Value requirement is Trade Offs factors determined through the Government testing.

Contractors must have an acceptable past performance. The advantageous tradeoffs and past performance when combined is significantly more important than price.

If the contractor’s proposal once reviewed and tested is equal with another contractor’s proposal, price will become the determining factor for award.

Amendment #6

(19) QUESTION:

The bid maximum value is $1,300,000.00 for 1600 shields. Being these are specialty cut shields and our pricing may exceed that amount, is the RFP acceptable for additional funds to meet the 1600 piece Criteria?

The original amount Not to Exceed was set at $1,300,000.00 based on the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). That amount is an estimate. If a contractor wins the award for the Ballistic Shield Best Value Tradeoff procurement and their cost does exceed the current IGCE, the final Not to Exceed amount would be adjusted accordingly in the final award document.

Amendment #7

(20) QUESTION:

Page 5 of 62, Section B, B.1. Ballistic Shields being procured: Contractor must provide supplies listed in the specifications in Section C to include Picture and Specification.

The solicitation calls out for images of the shields to be provided. Do you need an image of all three shields, or can we provide an image of the shield that we supply for assessment? If images of all 3 shields are not provided, does that count against the vendor for assessment?

The Government will NOT need any picture of any of the shields. The words “to include Picture and Specification” are removed from the solicitation. See Page 5 of 63 in Amendment #7. The contractor MUST assure the Government that the two (2) untested sizes can be made and meet all specifications. Also the Government is incorporating FAR Clause 52.209-4 First Article Approval. See Page 23 of 63 in Amendment #7. This clause “may” be used at the discretion of the ordering office for only the awardee of the contract with regards to the two (2) remaining untested sizes.

(21) QUESTION:

Do you have shipping addresses for the three agencies for pricing purposes (DEA, ATF, USMS)?

Shipping addresses are currently not available. The shipping addresses will be anywhere in Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) to include but not limited to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and Philippines. As already stated: all shipping cost must be inclusive with the final Ballistic Shield cost.