QandA_RFP 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored UV_amendment 0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47QSWC23R0001
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a request for proposals issued by GSA on behalf of the U.S. Air Force to procure NATO Standard STANAG 4569 Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicles. The RFP seeks proposals to modify commercially available vehicles to meet ballistic protection, payload, performance, and durability requirements outlined in an attached commercial item description. Proposals are due April 17th and must include welder certifications, pricing, company information, and past experience. The RFP evaluation will consist of two phases, with the first evaluating technical compliance, past performance, and prior experience on a pass/fail basis to determine which offerors advance to the second phase. Phase two will involve an oral presentation of the technical approach. Delivery of the first two production vehicles is required within 270 calendar days of order receipt for testing. The total small business set-aside has an estimated 5-year ordering period and seeks production and delivery schedule projections.
The document provides clarification on several aspects of the RFP through a question and answer format. Key points addressed include the expected level of floor armor protection, formatting requirements for submissions and presentations, applicability of regulations such as the Nonmanufacturer Rule, and what documentation is required to demonstrate specification compliance.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A Amendment 0001
| QUESTION AND ANSWER: RFP #47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | ||
| STANAG 4569 Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | ||
| Questions: Amendment 0001 | Answers: | |
| 1 | Page 5 of the main RFP document states that questions are due March 24th, while page 29 states March 23rd as the cutoff date. Can you please clarify? | Question are due no later than Thursday, March 23th 2023 at 12:00 p.m. EST. |
| 2 | Just an FYI…the specifications document is dated October 6, 2022. I wanted to be sure that is the latest version. | That is the most current version. |
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
| 26 | ||
| 27 | ||
| 28 | ||
| 29 | ||
| 30 | ||
| 31 | ||
| 32 | ||
| 33 | ||
| 34 | ||
| 35 | ||
| 36 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 38 |
Q&A Amendment 0002
| QUESTION AND ANSWER: RFP #47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | |||||
| STANAG 4569 Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | |||||
| Amendment 0002 | |||||
| Document Name | Page and Section Number | Text | Vendor Question | Answers | |
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) Final.pdf | Page 8 Section 1.2 | Training Requirements: Offeror shall provide for familiarization training to be conducted at F.E. Warren Air Force Base upon delivery of the first two UVs. | Can the government clarify the expectation for “familiarization training”? | Familiarization training should include physically walking the operator through the options and accessories of the vehicle (switch locations, system operations, safety items, etc.) | |
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) Final.pdf | Page17 | ||||
| 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity. (Oct 1995) | (c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, |
here is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders
| requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations. | Can the Government clarify delivery destinations? | Delivery destinations will be CONUS. Freight will quoted and determined at the order level with the exception of the two first units ordered under the minimum guarantee. See RFP page 5 for shipping address of first two units. | |||
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) Final.pdf | Page 27 Evaluation: Phase 2-Factor 4 | Detailed Project Plan with milestones for how offeror would ensure successful production and delivery for the proposed Level 1 Armored UV(s) | Will Government accept the project plan/production schedule/timeline in a Microsoft Project file format? Are there other acceptable formats? | Other formats which can be derived from Microsoft Project (snapshots of production schedules in Adobe, Excel, Word) would be acceptable for submission, since not all users have Microsoft Project. Government must be able to read deliverables on the presentation slides and during the oral presentations. | |
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) Final.pdf | Page 27 Evaluation: Phase 2-Factor 4 | 6. Customer Service Support for end-users. | Can the Government clarify where support will be required - location of end-users? This information will influence cost to vendors. | Locations for Customer Service Support for End User will be CONUS locations only. This support will be in the form of Phone, Email, and video teleconference such as Microsoft Teams. "In-Person" service support shall be provided ONLY for issues that cannot be corrected via Phone, Email, video teleconference and will be determined on a case-by-case basis based on vendor warranty specifications. | |
| Attachment 2_Phase 1 Minimum Specifications Matrix Level 1 Armored UV_Final V1.xlsx | 2.9.6.3.3 | The fuel fill opening, fuel cap, and fuel cap retention device shall be fabricated from non-sparking material. | There is no requirement for fuel tank coating or armor. Typically, for gasoline fueled armored vehicles, the industry standard is to apply a self-healing coating to the vehicles we make to this threat level. Would USAF prefer a self-healing coating on the fuel tank? | Acceptable to apply a self-healing coating to the vehicle's fuel tank. Undercarriage of the vehicle must also be protected in the event of blast IAW the CID. | |
| Attachment 2_Phase 1 Minimum Specifications Matrix Level 1 Armored UV_Final V1.xlsx | 2.11.2 | The vehicle will include a secondary system, independent of OEM equipment heater and air conditioner, that is capable of heating/cooling the interior passenger compartment of the vehicle to 68 to 72 ºF level with an ambient outdoor air temperature range of 0 to 100 ºF. The secondary system shall be operated off the additional power system (see 2.10.4). | Can the government please clarify if the secondary system is required so as to run when the engine is off, or is this secondary system designed to augment the capabilities of the standard OEM system? | Yes, the secondary system is required so as to run when the engine is off. Please see Section 2.10.4 which is referenced in Section 2.11.2. | |
| Attachment 2_Phase 1 Minimum Specifications Matrix Level 1 Armored UV_Final V1.xlsx | 7.1 | Offeror shall provide for familiarization training on the operation and functionality for the Level 1 Armored UV. Training shall be conducted at F.E. Warren Air Force Base upon delivery of the first two UVs. | Can the government clarify the expectation for “familiarization training”? | Familiarization training should include physically walking the operator through the options and accessories of the vehicle (switch locations, system operations, safety items, etc.) | |
| Attachment 2_Phase 1 Minimum Specifications Matrix Level 1 Armored UV_Final V1.xlsx | 6.1 | Offeror Shall provide their respective projected production and delivery lead time for potential bulk orders ranging from 1 - 60 SUVs per order up to 301 SUVs over a fiver year ordering period (subject to availability of funds). Offeror's are encouraged to indicate if they offer economy of scale discounts and what those parameters consist of. | Will Government accept the project plan/production schedule/timeline in a Microsoft Project file format? Are there other acceptable formats? | Microsoft Project is acceptable. However, other formats which can be derived from Microsoft Project (snapshots of production schedules in Adobe, Excel, Word) would be more beneficial since not all users have Microsoft Project. Government must be able to read deliverables without having Project loaded on their computers. | |
| Attachment 1_CID and Specifications_ Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle.pdf | Page 9 | Engine and related equipment | Does the Government still require EPA emission requirements for any vehicle being exported from the US? | Yes | |
| Attachment 1_CID and Specifications_ Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle.pdf | Page 10 | Exhaust system | If the OEM base chassis does not have a stainless steel exhaust system as OEM, does the Government still require the vendors to replace those components with stainless steel? | Yes, it does need to be replaced with stainless steel unless the vendor can provide options for additional materials that meet form, fit and function of a stainless steel system. | |
| Attachment 1_CID and Specifications_ Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle.pdf | Page 11 | Engine diagnostic system | If the base unit is equipped with an industry standard OBDII port, will that diagnostic input/output be acceptable? | As a commercial vehicle with modifications, the industry standard OBDII port, that diagnostic input/output should be acceptable since other add on systems are stand alone not requiring additional diagnostics through this requirement. | |
| Attachment 1_CID and Specifications_ Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle.pdf | Page 14 | Armor and ballistic protection | There is some discrepancy between this line item and the corresponding line item in (2.13). Can the Government please clarify the exact protection level required? | NATO Standard STANAG 4569 Level 1 ballistic protection | |
| Do you recognize only STANAG 4569 Level 1 ? | Armor requirements as outlined in the CID are the minimum requirements. Higher levels of armor without diminishing vehicle performance or capabilities are acceptable. | ||||
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV)_Amendment 0001.pdf | Page 27, Factor #4 | Factor 4: Technical Approach will not be evaluated until Phase 2 and is contingent upon offerors receiving the minimum ratings described in Phase 1. | Should offerors wait for an invitation from the CO at Phase 2 (after Phase 1 Evaluation) before submitting any written Factor #4: Technical Approach information? | Yes, the written technical approach for Factor 4 consists of the oral Technical Approach presentation slides for Phase 2. The CO will notify offerors if they are invited to participate in Phase 2. See page 27 of the RFP, which states that offerors shall email a copy of the oral technical approach slides directly to the CO at least 24 hours in advance of their scheduled presentation date and time. | |
| Attachment 6_Pricing Worksheet.xlsx | Column D | Total Estimated IDIQ Qty | |||
| Can the Government provide estimated quantities for Column D? | Attachment 6 has been updated to provide estimated annual quanties. Please note these are only estimated quantites.Only line item 0001 contains the minimum guaranteed quantity. | ||||
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV)_Amendment 0001.pdf | Page 27, Factor #4 | Offerors invited for Phase Two; Technical Approach Oral Presentations, shall bring eight (8) paper copies of the Oral Technical Approach Presentation slides in “Handout – 3 Slides” format with them to the Oral Presentation. | Can the Government provide "Handout - 3 Slides" format at this time? | A link to the instructions for printing handouts is provided in the link below. Only offerors invited to Phase 2 shall be required to provide slides. |
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/print-your-handouts-notes-or-slides-91c62c83-9032-497c-ab76-cae8f3e1a402
| 47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV)_Amendment 0001.pdf | Page 7, Section B: Offeror Information | Manufacturer | For Section B Manufacturer, should the offeror supply the base chassis vehicle manufacturer? | Offeror shall provide the base chassis and who the base chassis manufacturer is for the vehicle. P. 7 of the RFP has been revised to require offeror to provide Vehicle Manufacturer, Make and Model. |
| Meeting the required armored commercial vehicle payload, performance, durability, and ballistic requirements necessitates a substantial level of engineering and extensive verification testing. To ensure GSA and the Air Force are leveraging non-recurring engineering and testing previously funded and performed by the government, will you consider allowing Large Business to bid on this program? | The answer is no, large businesses will not be permitted to propose under the RFP as the prime offeror as it is set aside totally for small businesses. However, this does not preclude other business arrangements or partnerships from being utilized that are covered under FAR Part 19 when responding to this RFP. | |||
| In Attachment 2, Phase I Minimum Specification Matrix, what documentation will be required to demonstrate each of the minimum specification requirements are met? | Submission of the completed Attachment 2: Phase 1 Minimum Specifications Matrix Level 1 Armored UV which proposes a solution that meets all of the minimum specification/requirements along with submission of Welder Certifications in accordance with AWS D1.1 and AWS D1.2 for all welders being utilized on production of the Level 1 Armored Utility vehicles. |
| In Attachment 2, Phase I Minimum Specification Matrix, where possible, will you accept test reports from another DOD organization as evidence of compliance with mobility, durability, and blast requirements? | Test reports from another DOD organization as evidence of compliance with mobility, durability, and blast requirements will be acceptable as long as those tests were done with a vehicle that has the same, form, fit and function as the vehicle being built. |
| CID 2.1 states requirement for service life of at least 12 years – Armored vehicle durability testing has shown the need for undercarriage modification and frame reinforcements to extend vehicle life. Shall we include recommended design upgrades that have already been developed, tested, proven and production-ready in the proposal or will there be a design review planned for after contract award to detail upgrades required to extend service life? | An offeror’s proposed solution and pricing should consist of a readily available commercial vehicle that is modified to meet the Government’s requirements to include a service life of at least 12 years. Those offerors who advance to Phase 2 should include in their Oral Presentation detailed information regarding their total design solution production and delivery schedule capabilities including delivery that meets or exceeds the Government’s required 270 Days after receipt of order for delivery of the first two (2) units for testing. |
| CID 2.7.1 requires vehicle have a minimum payload of 1,500 pounds. Armored vehicle performance testing has shown that chassis reinforcement and suspension upgrades are required to support this payload and meet vehicle mobility and durability requirements. Shall we include recommended design upgrades that have already been developed, tested, proven and production-ready in the proposal or will there be a required design review planned after contract award to present details of these vehicle upgrades and supporting Finite Element Analysis to provide confidence and obtain approval of design? | An offeror’s proposed solution and pricing should consist of a readily available commercial vehicle that is modified to meet the Government’s requirements to include the minimum payload of 1,500 pounds, mobility and durability capabilities as described in the CID. Those offerors who advance to Phase 2 should include in their Oral Presentation detailed information regarding their total design solution production and delivery schedule capabilities including delivery that meets or exceeds the Government’s required 270 Days after receipt of order for delivery of the first two (2) units for testing. |
| CID 2.8.6 requires mounted steel disc wheel assemblies. Our experience in production-ready vehicles has shown alternative assemblies have similar functionality to steel wheel assemblies and provide substantial weight savings. Is it acceptable to propose alternative disc wheel assembly solutions or would this be deemed noncompliant? | Yes, alternative disc wheel assembly solutions are acceptable, however they shall meet the minimum form, fit and function of requirements and capabilities within the CID. |
| CID 4.1.1 states the contractor shall provide or arrange for all test equipment and facilities. Except as otherwise specified. Please clarify if the government intends to fund a third party to perform testing, and further what analysis and demonstration as described in 4.4 is required of the offeror? | No, the Government does not intend to fund a third party to perform testing, analysis or demonstration. All the testing mapped out in Section 4.4 is required of the successful awardee to provide documentation confirming that it met the CID requirements through test/analysis for the first production vehicle. A Government-approved reduced version of the checklist shall be used for each production vehicle. |
| Will there be any anticipated future requirement, such as for winching, recovery, blackout driving, emergency egress, cyber security, or integration of other payloads that should be taken into account in the proposal or during design of the vehicle platform? | We do not have requirements from the user for these items at this time. |
| RFP Section G: Evaluation, Page 31 lists Required Submissions for the ‘Technical Compliance with Solicitation Minimum Requirements.” A technical proposal is not included in Required Submissions and a description of technical proposal content is not included in RFP. However, in Attachment 2, Phase I Minimum Specification Matrix, Column D asks for Offeror’s Proposal Reference, to include page number section/paragraph of proposal that meets or exceeds required specification. Is a technical proposal required for Phase I? If so, is there a page limit associated with Technical Proposal? | Attachment 2 has been revised to address this question and is included with amendment 0002. Column D adds Meets, Does Not Meet or Exceeds Minimum Requirements drop down selection blocks for offeror completion and Column E adds Specification/Salient Characteristic explanation fill- in blocks for offeror completion. |
| RFP Section G: Evaluation, Page 31 lists Required Submissions for the “Technical Compliance with Solicitation Minimum Requirements.” The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) is not included in Required Submissions. Is Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire required for submittal as part of Phase I? | No, Offerors are not required to submit past performance questionnaires with their submittal for Phase I. In accordance with Factor 3 - Past Performance, Offerors are required to provide Past Performance Questionnaires to their prior experience references. In the event the Government does not receive any past performance questionnaires from offeror's references, the Government may review any/all information in the CPARS/PPIRS. Please also reference RFP p. 32-33 for additional information. |
| RFP Section G Phase I, Factor 2 Prior Experience – Will the government conduct the assessment of offeror’s and any proposed subcontractor Prior Experience? For Phase I, Factor 3 Past Performance, the RFP states the government will assess quality of the offerors and subcontractor Past Performance. Please confirm evaluation of offeror and subcontractor submission is also intent for Prior Experience. | The offeror may use its prior subcontract experience in addition to its prior experience as the prime contractor, as long as it is recent and relevant and of similar size, scope and duration to the |
work described in the PWS. The offeror must submit at least one (1) PE reference in which they were the prime contractor on the project. The offeror must identify whether it was the prime or a subcontractor for each project.
Up to two (2) of the three (3) PE references may be from a key subcontractor to the offeror; at least one (1) PE reference must be from the prime Offeror providing the Quote and prior experience in which they were the Prime and performed the services similar in scope to this requirement. See p. 27 of RFP as amended.
| RFP Section G page 29 states Technical Compliance with Minimum Requirements, Prior Experience, Past Performance are non-price factors, and that these will be of equal importance and when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, Section G indicates the Technical Compliance is assigned a pass or fail rating for entry to Phase II. Please clarify how the Phase I factors will be evaluated as part of the overall evaluation process. | Only offerors participating in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of evaluations will be evaluated for all Non-price factors: All non-price factors are of equal importance. When combined all non-price factors (factors 1 - 4) are significantly more important than Factor 5: Price. As the difference in non-price factors becomes closer, price may become more important. The government will select a Proposal based upon a trade-off determination. Non-price factors will be evaluated first, then price. The Government may award to other than lowest price. See p. 29-35 of the RFP for detailed information about proposal evaluation. |
| Please clarify that in Attachment 2, Column C Offeror’s Specification / Salient Characteristic the offeror shall detail how they will meet or exceed the minimum requirements, not just restate the requirement? | Attachment 2 has been revised to address this question and is included with amendment 0002. Column D adds Meets, Does Not Meet or Exceeds Minimum Requirements drop down selection blocks for offeror completion and Column E adds Specification/Salient Characteristic explanation fill- in blocks for offeror completion. |
| During our critical design review over the past few weeks that concluded today, we are striving to offer you a vehicle that meets the maximum weight and dimension requirements for height and width. If a vehicle’s specifications demonstrate they do not comply with the maximum weight and dimensions, will the bid be considered or automatically disqualified? | The vehicle must meet the specifications outlined in the CID and (Attachment 2). In accordance with Factor 1 on page 31 of the RFP, any offeror who fails to provide the required information/documentation will receive a rating of “Fail” for the “Technical Compliance with Solicitation Minimum Requirements” and will not receive any further consideration. |
Q&A Amendment 0003a
| QUESTION AND ANSWER: RFP #47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | ||
| STANAG 4569 Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) | ||
| Questions: Amendment 0003 | Answers: | |
| 1 | The Government has provided some clarification on the floor protection; however, the Stanag 1 specification is still vague as it relates to the threat level the floor protection is required to meet. Can the Government please advise if the floor protection is required to defeat the “industry standard” of two (2) DM51 Hand Grenades, or does the Government require floor protection against threats such as the DM31 landmine? The differing threat levels will make substantial difference in materials on the floor, which will influence the performance of the finished vehicle. | Yes. It is the “industry standard” of two (2) DM51 Hand Grenades option. The requied armor level is NATO Standard STANAG 4569 Level 1. Hand grenades, unexploded artillery fragmenting submunitions, and other small anti personnel explosive devices detonated anywhere under the vehicle” for Level 1 protection. |
| 2 | When the Government is advising that the first two production/test units are due 270 days after receipt of order, are those calendar days or business days? We are assuming calendar days but would like confirmation from the Government. | Calendar Days. The RFP has been amended accordingly. |
| 3 | The amended RFP is named “Microsoft Word - RFP_VISN 12 Infusion Pumps System _Amd 3_9.12.22.docx.pdf”Should the amended RFP be named “47QSWC23R0001_RFP_Level 1 Armored Utility Vehicle (UV) Amend 2.pdf” instead? | The RFQ has been amended to correct this issue. Thank you. |
| 4 | Based off the Governments response on the Q&A, specifically Row 18, it would appear that vendors are not required to submit a detailed technical approach, for Factor 4, as part of the initial submission, which is due on April 17th.Instead, the detailed technical approach is due within 24 hours of the oral presentation.We need the Government to confirm that the files are the only files to be submitted by April 17th: |
Cover Letter / Executive Summary Welder Certs Attachment 5 – Pricing Worksheet RFP Sections: Section B and Section H Amended Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Yes - that is correct. As part of the Phase 1 evaluation, the Government will evaluate all Phase 1 required submittal documents in addition to any Past Performance Questionnaires received directly from the Prior Experience references provided in Attachment 4 - Prior Experience Worksheet.
Phase 1 submittals cover factors 1 -3 as detailed on pages 26-27 under "Evaluation Phase One Instructions". Based upon the evaluation of Factors 1-3, the CO will notify offerors if they are invited to participate in Phase 2. Only those offerors who advance to Phase 2 of the Evlauation Process shall be required to provide a written technical approach for Factor 4. The written technical approach for Factor 4 shall consist of the oral presentation slides described on page 27 of the RFP. Detailed instructions for submittal requirements for Phase 2 are located on pages 27-28 of the RFP under Evaluation Phase Two Instructions and Information: Oral Presentations.
| 5 | Looking at the FAR Clauses, we noticed that FAR 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule will not be incorporated into the solicitation. Please clarify and confirm this allows small business awardee to subcontract with an entity of any size for end item(s) and small businesses are not required to manufacture, process, or produce items making up at least 50 percent of estimated contract value. | FAR Clause 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule does not apply to this procurement. The applicable NAICS code is 336110, Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing. This NAICS code recently replaced both industries previously represented by NAICS codes 336111 and 336112 which are both currently listed on SBA's Nonmanufacturer Rule Class Waiver List. Therefore, SBA's Nonmanufacturer Rule Class Waiver guidelines apply to this RFP. |
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
| 26 | ||
| 27 | ||
| 28 | ||
| 29 | ||
| 30 | ||
| 31 | ||
| 32 | ||
| 33 | ||
| 34 | ||
| 35 | ||
| 36 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 38 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .