Questions and Answers .docx

Is there an option for any type of down payment for the (8) growing systems? No. Installment clause is not defined. Only progress payments after each unit delivered or 1 invoice.

The SOW requires a minimum of 6,000 lbs of leafy greens per year AND 650 heads of lettuce per week. Are these two independent minimums that must be met simultaneously by a single unit, or is the 650 heads/week figure intended as one illustrative path to meeting the 6,000 lb annual yield? It’s one path towards 6,000lbs per year. Still need the 650lbs per week.

For yield verification, will the Government accept manufacturer-rated/spec-sheet production figures and third-party grow data, or is a live demonstration or guaranteed-yield contractual commitment expected? 3rd party grow data would be sufficient.

The 650 heads/week figure does not specify a target harvest weight or lettuce variety. Can the Government confirm an acceptable average head weight and whether a specific variety (e.g., butterhead, romaine) is required? 6,000lbs is the standard for the year. Proposals should propose their units and what they can produce and their variety.

The SOW references a “staggered scale” for replicable production. Is there a required number of distinct grow zones or harvest cycles per unit, or is staggering left to the offeror's design? Offeror’s design

Beyond leafy greens and lettuce, the training topics reference “fruits and vegetables.” Are units expected to support crops beyond leafy greens, and if so, will that capability be evaluated Proposals should contain material with fruits and vegetables as per the SOW training material section. A unit that could produce fruits and vegetables in the future vs one that can not would be viewed more favorably. At a minimum though the training material section requires fruit and vegetable material.

Can the Government provide site-specific information (pad dimensions, pad load rating, available crane staging/access, overhead obstructions, and utility stub locations) for each of the eight locations to support the required site survey and accurate crane pricing?

SOW states pads are for a standard 40’ Conex box, with ability to adjust if vendor proposes. Vendor must do site survey per SOW. Pads are not built yet. Some places might require a pad built, some might already have location ready.

For the virtual site survey option, will the Government furnish photographs, satellite imagery, video walkthroughs, and logistical data for each site, and by when relative to the quote due date? Site surveys happen after award. There will not be a notice to proceed till a site survey is conducted per the SOW for each location. Virtual survey could include what is listed in the SOW.

The SOW states the Government provides outside utility connections after placement. Can the Government confirm the available electrical service at each site (voltage, phase, and amperage) so units can be specified to match?

This will be finalized prior to notice to proceed after award is made. Proposals should state what is being offered with regard to amperage/voltage needs of their units.

FCC Butner is noted to receive two boxes at different locations. Are both Butner pads and access routes confirmed, and should each be treated as a separate delivery/site survey?

Actual pad location is not confirmed but both units would be treated as a separate delivery/site survey.

Regarding site-specific security modifications, will these always be handled as a separate priced quote after award (i.e., excluded from the base Line 0001 price), and can the Government share any known/anticipated security requirements now to inform design?

No guarantee any modification could be needed at all but a specific location during the progress schedule could require some type of enhancement/security measure that could be something commonly seen/expected inside a prison.

Can the Government provide each facility's known or anticipated security modification requirements (e.g., shatter-resistant glazing, tamper-resistant fasteners, lockable enclosures, ligature mitigation, restrictions on nutrient/chemical storage and concentrations, tool control), or describe the process and timing by which site-specific security requirements will be communicated and separately quoted after award? Confirmation of the funding/approval mechanism for these modifications is also requested. Unknown at this time till after award but before NTP. And unknown till proposals/offers are submitted, as the Government does not know what is being offered yet. Modifications would only be completed/approved with attached funding.

The 12-month period of performance begins at the Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the first box. Will a single NTP cover all eight sites, or will site-specific NTPs be issued as individual site reviews/modifications are completed? Each site shall have its own (NTP) Notice to Proceed, a written notice by the Contracting Officer to begin any fabrication, manufacturing, or delivery.

If individual site modifications delay the NTP for certain locations, will the 12-month clock for those units adjust, or must all eight units be delivered within 12 months of the first NTP regardless? If modifications are needed outside of the original award those modifications could also allow for an extended progress schedule/timeline that is agreed upon.

Is there a required or preferred delivery sequence/priority among the eight locations, or may the offeror propose the sequence in the initial progress schedule?

Looking for proposals as SOW requires a progress schedule after award within 10 days. Though discussions after award/prior to a (NTP) Notice to Proceed will confirm the schedule. The Government has no set order yet for the locations.

Training must occur within 30 days of unit placement. If a facility cannot accommodate scheduling within that window for reasons outside the Contractor's control, how should that be handled for schedule and acceptance purposes? Training would be scheduled as soon as possible if outside that 30 day window at no fault to the Contractor.

Line 0001 is priced per EA (qty 8) as all-inclusive. Because crane and site-access costs may vary significantly by location, will the Government accept a single uniform unit price across all eight units, or may offerors provide location-specific pricing that averages to the unit price? Either option will be reviewed as part of the analysis, neither is more important than the other.

Optional Line 0002 covers one additional 8-hour training day (qty 1). Should offerors price this as a single per-day rate that the Government may order as needed at any location, and is there an anticipated maximum quantity for budgeting? Yes, single per day rate. No current maximum. It is anticipated that if a location needed additional training it would not be a substantial number of days. Vendor could propose their own maximum add on training days.

The one-year warranty begins at final acceptance per unit. Given staggered deliveries, does the Government require any extended or coterminous warranty across all units, or does each unit warranty run independently from its own acceptance date?

SOW states at time of final acceptance for each unit. Each unit as a one year warranty independently.

FAR 52.232-30 (Installment Payments) is incorporated, while the SOW describes per-site progress payments. Can the Government clarify which payment mechanism governs and whether per-unit acceptance invoicing is the intended approach?

52.232-30 is include BUT at current time is not being utilized as no computation of financing is specified within the solicitation.

Per the SOW a vendor can submit progress payments for each unit that is completed. OR (1) single invoice at the end of the contract.

The SOW and Evaluation Criteria list IT-centric standards (508, FISMA, NIST, FIPS, FedRAMP, HSPD-12, PGD 15-03). For a physical hydroponic container, can the Government clarify which of these apply, and whether they are triggered only if a unit's control system connects to a DOJ network or transmits DOJ information?

Proposals should state if their units require a network connection or transmits data, etc. Or if no connection or if offering both options. Offerors should self-assess their proposed systems. Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and demonstrated ability to comply to their proposed systems.

DOJ-05 includes a checked C-SCRM requirement (NIST SP 800-161 C-SCRM Plan, SBOM, self- and external assessment). Does the Government consider the unit's onboard monitoring/control software “mission critical or sensitive-data” such that a full C-SCRM Plan and SBOM are required as a deliverable?

Would not be mission critical or sensitive-data.

If a unit's environmental controls use any cloud-connected or remote-monitoring component, do the FedRAMP/ATO provisions of DOJ-05 apply? May offerors propose a fully standalone (non-networked) control system to avoid these requirements?

Either option could be proposed.

Buy American and TAA both appear in the solicitation. Can the Government confirm the controlling preference for this acquisition and the domestic-content/country-of-origin threshold that components (including the container shell and control electronics) must meet? The 1449 has 52.225-2 and 52.225-1 with some fill-ins as it’s a small business set aside. Buy American is the preference. TAA is mentioned in the compliance section of the SOW as allowable.

Given the 100% small business set-aside and the Nonmanufacturer Rule, can the Government confirm whether an offeror that fabricates/integrates the units in-house is treated as the manufacturer, and how the Limitations on Subcontracting (52.219-14) apply to the delivery/crane portion of the work? Offeror fabricating etc in house is treated as the manufacturer. 2nd part applies to the whole project, not the smaller line item portion of delivery.

Both the Evaluation Factors and the SOW list “PGD 15-03,” which the SOW defines as DOJ Procurement Guidance Document 15-03. As this document does not appear to be publicly available, can the Government provide a copy or an official citation/link so offerors can demonstrate compliance with its requirements? DOJ Procurement Guidance Document (PGD) 15-03, 'Security of Information and Information Systems,' is Incorporated by reference. The full text does appear available online when searching.

Can the Government clarify which provisions of DOJ Procurement Guidance Document 15-03 are applicable to the design, delivery, and operation of the hydroponic units, and whether compliance is to be documented as part of the quote or treated as a performance obligation after award? It’s dependent on what is offered for applicability. Possibly the complete clause. Not required to confirm compliance in the proposal. It’s in the SOW to ensure commitment to comply as a condition of performance after award.

On-site staff must pass an NCIC background check. What is the expected lead time for clearance, and is there a limit on the number of personnel that may be submitted for clearance per site?

NCIC typically is a few days at most. Staffing coming on-site should submit, limited number.

Is there a page limit, required format (e.g., PDF), file-size cap for email submission, or required volume/section structure for the technical quote? The solicitation specifies content but not format constraints. No limit or format specified.

Should the technical response be organized to mirror the Evaluation Criteria sub-factors in order, and is a compliance matrix cross-referencing the SOW desired? Offeror’s decision. Evaluation is based on clarity, depth, and information provided.

The Experience factor requires three examples of delivered turnkey container units with a pre-installed grow environment, and three examples of hydroponic curriculum/training. May the same past contract be cited for both, and what recency window does the Government consider “relevant”? Yes, and no timeline for recency is defined in this factor.

Is there a preferred format or form (e.g., PPQ/questionnaire) for past performance references, or should offerors simply provide contract numbers and points of contact as described?

Offeror’s decision. SOW does say POC, phone numbers and “relevant information”

For value-added enhancements offered at additional cost, will those added costs be included in the price evaluation/tradeoff, or evaluated separately from the base price comparison? Government would review both options. List your enhancements that go beyond the SOW/Eval Factors, state whether the enhancement is included or an additional cost. Priced and unpriced enhancements will be evaluated via the trade-off process.