70B06C18R00000037_CONSOLIDATED_QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS.pdf

CONSOLIDATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A)

Questions and answers from all questions asked for solicitation 70B06C18R00000037

SOW: 4.5.5 Exterior of slide shall be clearly and permanently marked “For Training Use Only”.

Question: Our Red Inert Training Pistol is currently marked with the

Following:

WARNING-DANGER

practice sample – do not load or fire live ammunition

Will this statement be acceptable to the Government for this pistol?

ANSWER: No. Pistols must be marked, at a minimum, with the words

SOW: 4.6.4 Exterior of slide shall be clearly and permanently marked

Question: Our Blue Marking Training Pistol is currently marked with the following:

WARNING

For Training Use Only Use 9mm FX / 9mm FoF Ammo Only

Will this statement be acceptable to the Government for this pistol?

ANSWER: Yes. This contains, at a minimum, the words “For Training Use Only”.

SOW: 4.18.2 Pallets and associated packaging, when used for shipping, shall be fully enclosed, and shall be stackable allowing for a second complete pallet to be placed on top of a first complete pallet, without structural problems or damage to the contents of either pallet.

Question: It has been our experience dealing with other Agencies that from time to time you may need to place and small order

(example: 50 Blue Training Pistols). On an order of this size we would normally FedEx this order. How would we apply the above referenced protocol to this type of order?

ANSWER: Reference SOW Section 4.18.1 and 4.18.4. Section 4.18.2 applies only if pallets are used for shipping large quantities of pistols. This does not require pallets to be used for every delivery (i.e. small shipments).

SOW: 4.18.3 Pallets shall be secured with banding, and shall be sealed using metal crimps. One of the metal crimps shall be numbered with a unique serial number or shall be encased with a number plastic cover, such as the NovaVision Snap-Secure Pallet

Crimp Seals or equivalent.

Question: The reference above does not specify what type of banding is to be used. Is nylon acceptable?

ANSWER: Yes. CBP requires serialized banding to identify whether or not shipments have been tampered with. The type of banding utilized is not specified and is at the discretion of the vendor.

SOW 4.1.1.5 An owner's manual for the specific make and model of pistol submitted, in English, which details at a minimum:

4.1.1.5.1 Rules of pistol safety (safe handling of pistols)

4.1.1.5.2 eration of the pistol

4.1.1.5.3 and unloading procedures

4.1.1.5.4 assembly and re-assembly procedures

4.1.1.5.5 cleaning and maintenance

4.1.1.5.6 technical specifications

Question: Does each owner’s manual in each case have to have technical specifications for each variant pistol #1, pistol #2, pistol

#3 or can a pistol specific technical data sheet be used per box?

ANSWER: Technical data for each pistol must be submitted with the owner’s manual for each pistol variant. A separate technical data sheet included with each pistol, specific to the model, is acceptable and meets the requirements of SOW Section 4.1.1.5.

4.10.22.6. page 28 Any surface cracks/fractures, visible without magnification, could indicate potential for significant safety risks and will result in a catastrophic failure. Any cracks/fractures which require magnification to detect, which are unlikely to result any risk to safety, are acceptable.

Question: It has been our experience conducting similar tests of this type, that it is possible for a GLOCK barrel to exhibit surface cracks in our nDLC treated surfaces without compromising the metal of the barrel itself. The statement above does not take this into account.

Can this statement be more specific to indicate the metal portion of the barrel not just the surface area?

ANSWER: This section refers to structural cracks / fractures which would likely compromise the integrity of the firearm (i.e. metal portions of the barrel and slide, or plastic or metal portions of the frame). These types of surface cracks / fractures could indicate significant safety risks.

Cracks in surface coatings alone do not inherently indicate structural compromise to the firearm, and would not constitute a catastrophic failure for SOW Section 4.10.22.6.

Question: Does the Government have a preference as to what type of Compact Disk (CD) labeling is used for submissions?

Answer: No preference.

Question: Regarding Volume submissions, what constitutes an

“original” and a “copy”; what are the differences between the two (e.g. ink signatures, etc.)?

Answer: All three volumes submissions shall be identical outside of any signatures that may be required. The

Original should contain the ink signatures.

Question: Section 1 “Proposal General Information” states Volume III, Past Performance, shall be submitted directly by the references

“in an original hard copy and also an email copy”; however, the Past

Performance Questionnaire Word document (Attachment 5) says to email the completed questionnaire to the address provided and that

“a copy of this questionnaire will also be placed with your Volume 1.”

1. Please confirm references should also submit a hard copy of the completed questionnaire to David Myers.

2. Does the offeror need to include copies of the completed questionnaires in the proposal? If so, are the copies to be submitted in Volume III?

Answer: Have the reference, person completing the reference, send a signed copy via email to david.myers@cbp.dhs.gov and the offeror also include shall send a hard copy in Volume III. Volume III is for the questionnaires.

Question: Is there a preferred delivery method for proposals, sample pistols, and related items required for Volumes 1-4? Is hand delivery acceptable?

Answer: For Volume I and II, there is no preferred delivery method.

Hand delivery is acceptable. Volume III, see above. Volume IV shall be submitted in both, hard copy binder and electronically to David Myers.

Question: Some items of the Solicitation and Statement of Work will require clarification to ensure the best proposal for the government.

The deadline for receipt of questions is July 31th, 2018. This leaves approximately 6-7 weeks after any clarifications to complete building the required configurations, send pistols to the NIJ lab to complete testing, and submit the pistols for the technical proposal by the deadline of September 19, 2018. Would the government consider extending the deadline by 4 weeks to October 17, 2018?

Answer: No.

Question: Subpart 2 of the technical proposal states, “Offeror shall include a description of the Offeror’s approach and technical characteristics satisfying each requirement of this solicitation”;

however, several SOW sections (i.e. 4.5 – 4.9) are addressed in

Subpart 5. Which SOW sections, specifically, need to be addressed in Volume 1, Subpart 2? Please provide further guidance regarding expectations or format for this section.

Answer: Vendor shall address their approach to meeting each technical requirement in Subpart 2. Subpart 5 shall include the actual Self Certifying Documents required for each requirement listed in that subpart.

Question: Is the quantity table for “Subpart 4 – Samples” intended to mean 2 of each pistol as described in SOW 4.1.1 plus 2 of each item listed?

Answer: Vendor shall submit the quantity of each specific line item listed in Subpart 4 (for example: Line Item 10 “Pistol #1 full size” Quantity 2 would mean the vendor shall submit two full size pistols.

Question: Should red and blue pistols include case contents specified in SOW 4.1.1?

Answer: No, there are no line items listed that specify a Plastic Case for either the red or blue pistols.

Question: Volume IV includes the completed SF1449. Are offerors also to include the completed “Offeror Representations and

Certifications” in Volume IV? Or are the Representations and Certifications not required to be submitted with proposal if SAM registration is current?

Answer: The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award

Management (SAM) website located at https://www.sam.gov/portalhttps://www.sam.gov/portal. If the

Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (u) of this provision.

Offeror shall include the appropriate section in their Volume IV submission.

Question: For Volume III, Past Performance, please define “projects similar in size and scope to this requirement.” Does this limit past performance to only handgun related contracts?

Answer: Similar size would refer to both the dollar threshold of estimated 85M and also the estimated number of weapons to be delivered. It is not limited to handguns, but should be rifle or pistol related.

Question: Is the evaluation referenced in Parts A and B going to be carried out in addition to the testing at the NIJ Lab or will it reference the Test Data Sheets for the evaluations?

Answer: All criteria contained in Volume I, to include parts A and B, that requires testing shall be evaluated utilizing the NIJ Test Data results submitted by the vendor.

Question: Please clarify the level of disassembly / reassembly required in the owner’s manual (SOW §4.1.1)

Answer: CBP requires the disassembly/reassembly procedures required for field level maintenance of the weapon by the end-user to be included in the owner’s manual.

Question: Please clarify the level of disassembly / reassembly required in the owner’s manual (SOW §4.1.1)

Answer: CBP requires the disassembly/reassembly procedures required for field level maintenance of the weapon by the end-user to be included in the owner’s manual.

Question: Part A – Pass / Disqualification does not list the back straps referenced in SOW §4.1.1 as required. Are the 3 sets of back straps required?

Answer: Yes, they are part of the requirements listed in SOW §4.1.1.

(as well as SOW §4.1.12.2.1) and should be included in the proposal samples.

Question: The eleventh bullet point from the top of page 45 states a self- certification is required for sights. The sight self-certification is not mentioned in Part 4, Proposal Volume Content; where should we include the self-certification for the sights?

Answer: Self-Certification for the sights shall be included in Subpart

5.

Question: Will parts interchangeability or other disassembly beyond field stripping be performed by USCBP on the two pistols to be provided to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia?

Question: If so, does the government require that any of the armorer tools or materials be submitted with the proposal?

Question: SOW §4.10 states in several paragraphs “Recorded trigger pull measurement for this test may be scored but shall not constitute a disqualifying rating”. The evaluation criteria in the solicitation states that for temperature shock, icing, salt water immersion, and salt fog testing, after testing is completed, a trigger pull over 12lbs is a DQ. Please confirm that the 12lb DQ criteria applies only to measurement after the completion of test.

Answer: The specified requirement for general trigger pull for each submission is 4.5lb to 8lb, found in 4.1.9.2. Temperature shock, icing, salt water immersion and fog requires trigger pull to be in this range prior to the testing and no more than 12lb after the completion of the test.

Question: Does the government require submission of holsters to evaluate the “vehicle entry with seatbelt” scoring criteria?

Question: If a specific holster is to be used for this evaluation, how will the government ensure a fair competition if preferred holster is not available for all pistols?

Answer: If commercially available holsters exist for all submissions, CBP will utilize the same version of commercially available holster specific to each firearm. If holsters are not commercially available for all submissions, CBP will utilize a universal-type holster for all submissions. The make and type of holster will be the same for all submissions.

Question: A footnote states ”Vendor shall complete this pricing schedule of supplies with a complete list of parts that comprise all firearms included in the statement of work (SOW Section 4.8.3), along with part numbers, pricing, and compatibility.” Should the vendor use this same template to list all spare parts and pricing to the government?

Answer: Yes.

Question: If so, is there a CLN to reference for spare and replacement parts?

Answer: The vendor shall continue the CLN numbering already in place for each item added to the schedule.

Question: Regarding the cable gun lock, would the government allow a 15” cable lock that is similar to the model specified?

Answer: No, the requirement is for Brand Name or Equal. Differing lengths shall not be considered “equal” to the brand item listed.

Question: Would the government consider relaxing the maximum dimension requirement for the pistol case to 14”x10”x3.75” or 12.5” x 10” x 2.85”?

Answer: No

Question: Would the government allow for a manufacturing tolerance of +0.25 inches on a case measurement?

Answer: The case measurements listed in SOW §4.1.2.1 are firm maximum dimensions not specific dimensions, so tolerances do not apply.

Question: Would the government consider waiving or relaxing the case requirement for submission with the understanding that the first deliveries after award would be delivered in the described case?

Question: Can the government please define what constitutes a “side”?

Answer: Sides are illustrated in the picture contain in SOW §4.1.2.1 with arrows specifying maximum dimensions.

Question: Is a curved “front” which contains the handle acceptable if the case meets all size requirements?

Question: Our pistol conforms with SAAMI specifications for 9mm

Luger - Is a barrel marked 9x19 acceptable?

Answer: Yes. The barrel is required to meet SAAMI specifications, however, there is no requirement for barrel markings.

Question: Does the government have a preference to whether the magazine release is ambidextrous (full time left and right) or reversible (moved to opposite side by armorer)?

Question: Can the government clarify if the “at least 50% surface area” is in reference to the rear grooves? Please confirm that this should be interpreted as “shall cover at least 50% of the surface area covered by the rear grooves”.

Answer: Yes. The percentage of the front is in relation to the rear.

Question: Due to the reduced barrel length of pistol #3, there will be less area in front of the ejection port on which to add grasping grooves. This makes maintaining the 50% surface area of rear grasping grooves requirement difficult. Would the government consider relaxing this requirement for pistol #3?

Answer: No. The grasping grooves in the front must be 50% of the surface area of the grasping grooves in the rear for each respective pistol size.

Question: In the answers to RFI questions in February 2018, it was stated the Red Inert and Blue Marking Training Pistols were exempt from the optics ready slide requirement. Is this still the case?

Answer: Yes. Red and Blue pistols are exempt from the optics ready requirement.

Question: Is the definition of “live ammunition” to be interpreted as a 9mm Luger Round versus a Simunition training ammunition round?

Answer: For the purposes of the solicitation, “Live ammunition” refers to Winchester Ranger 147 gr jacketed hollow point (Q4392) or Speer Gold Dot 124 gr + P jacketed hollow point (PN 53617).

Question: Our back straps for each pistol size are sized to match the frames, which are exempt from the interchangeability requirement.

Please confirm that back straps are also exempted from the interchangeability requirement.

Answer: Backstraps may be considered part of the frame and are excluded from the interchangeability requirement.

Question: Our optics adapter plate design is a kit providing the plate and screws to ensure best retention and co-witness with the requested optics. Please confirm “plate” references the mounting hardware to include plate and screws.

Answer: Yes. Parts and hardware required for the vendor’s adaptor plate shall be included with the plate.

Question: When are cut-away pistols required?

Answer: Cut away pistols will be required at the time of the first depot-level armorer’s course provided by the vendor.

Question: The pistol test matrix indicates quantities of Pistol #1, Pistol #2, Pistol #3

– is that to be interpreted that the “Pistols” must be delivered with case and all case contents as described in §4.1.1?

Answer: No, case and contents as described in §4.1.1 are not required to be sent to the NIJ Laboratories. There will not be an evaluation of the pistol case at the NIJ labs.

Question: The difference in bullet weight and velocities of the two listed rounds will affect abilities to meet point of aim / point of impact if attempts are made to target both rounds. Please confirm that the Winchester ammunition will be used for accuracy and targeting testing?

Answer: This is correct. Accuracy and targeting testing shall utilize the Winchester ammunition. The Speer ammunition is only used for SOW Section 4.10.25.

Question: In several environmental conditioning tests, the primer of the primed cartridge case will be exposed to conditioning versus a sealed 9mm round. Is a fail to fire on the primed case a stoppage?

Answer: No. It may, however, be considered a Class I Malfunction if there is clear and convincing evidence that the failure was due to the firearm and not the ammunition (i.e. light or non-existent primer strike).

Question: If so, how will the evaluation distinguish if any stoppages were caused due to a wet or corroded primer versus the pistol?

Answer: The labs will provide photographs as well as a written description of the primer (post firing) in their test data reports to the vendors, for technical review during the source selection process.

Question: Would the government consider using a live round as specified for Icing §4.10.16?

Answer: Due to the nature of the testing, it is not possible to leave a loaded weapon with a live round chambered.

Question: During routine closing of a pistol or rough handling, marks from components other than the firing pin could be transferred to the case or primer. Please clarify how “primer dimpling” is measured or defined.

Answer: Primer dimpling is a mark which has been clearly made to the center of the primer by the firing pin. Marks on the case in areas other than the center of primer where a firing pin would strike shall not be marked as a “primer strike”

Question: The obstructed bore test could result in a bulge, which depending on location, could make it difficult to separate the slide and barrel. How will the government distinguish between surface cracks that occur from the obstructed bore test versus surface cracks that could form during removal and separation of the slide and barrel for inspection?

Answer: Any surface cracks/fractures, visible without magnification at the conclusion of the test, to include those potentially caused/enhanced by separation of the slide and barrel, could indicate material weakened during the obstructed bore test, and shall be recorded and documented by the test facility. Intentional cuts made by the test facility to separate the slide and barrel shall be recorded by the labs and will not be counted against the vendor.

Question: Short barreled, compact weapons typically do not achieve the same precision performance as longer barreled handguns due to the shorter barrel length and effects of unburnt powder. Would the Government consider relaxing the precision grouping requirements for Pistol #3?

Answer: All pistols may be utilized as duty firearms by the

Government and require equal levels of accuracy. This requirement will remain unchanged.

Question: Short barreled, compact weapons typically do not achieve the same precision performance as longer barreled handguns due to the shorter barrel length and effects of unburnt powder. Would the

Government consider relaxing the precision grouping requirements for Pistol #3?

Answer: All pistols may be utilized as duty firearms by the

Government and require equal levels of accuracy. This requirement will remain unchanged.

Question: In what proposal Volume/Subsection are we to include the Quality Control Plan? Is there a page limit?

Answer: Volume I, Subpart 2 of the Technical Proposal. There is no page limit.

Question: Does the Government intend that the vendor include parts list for the red and blue guns or only the duty weapons?

Answer: Parts list are not required for the red and blue guns.

Question: Does the Government intend to follow the evaluation criteria in SOW 4.10.12.6.4 or page 48 of the RFP for sand and dust testing, as the criteria differ?

Answer: SOW and solicitation criteria match for this section.

criteria in SOW 4.10.16.7.4 or page 48 of the RFP for icing testing, as the criteria differ?

Answer: SOW will be amended to reflect the solicitation.

criteria in SOW 4.10.17.6.4 or page 48 of the RFP for salt water immersion, as the criteria differ?

criteria in SOW 4.10.18.5.4 or page 49 of the RFP for salt water fog testing, as the criteria differ?

Question: In the event that vendors are unable to obtain sufficient amounts of ammunition to complete NIJ testing, will the Government extend the deadline for submissions?

Answer: Consideration may be given if documentation can be provided showing the delay was not the fault of the vendor.

Question: SOW 4.1.1.2 Please confirm whether Pistol #3 requires any extra backstraps, as traditionally, this size pistol does not offer different size backstraps.

Answer: Yes. All pistols, including Pistol #3, require back straps and/or chasis system available in a minimum of 3 sizes.

Question: SOW 4.1.5.1 Please advise if there is an exact cerakote color code for “Ranger Green” and “Flat Dark Earth”?

Answer: No. Since there is no brand name/type of coating required, there will not be an exact color code specified.

Question: SOW 4.1.8.7 States pistol “shall have an internal safety which prevents the pistol from firing when dropped”. Please confirm if a firing pin block and/or trigger safety features satisfy this requirement?

Answer: This is a performance based requirement. Pistols may not fire when dropped in accordance with the test parameters set in

SOW Section 4.10.21. The method of internal safety used to meet this performance requirement is at the discretion of the manufacturer.

Question: Solicitation Reference. Page 38, Subpart 4 – Samples. Is Line Item Number 20D a standalone item, or should it be included in

Line Item 10A Pistol Case?

Answer: All items listed in Subpart 4 are standalone requirements.

Packaging of items for submission is at the discretion of the vendor, however, vendors should be aware that deliveries on contract (if awarded) will be required to meet SOW Section 4.1.2.

Question: Solicitation Reference. Page 42, Part A – Past/Disqualification. SOW 4.1.2.1 The revised Statement of Work issued with the Solicitation cites the dimensions of the plastic case at 10” Wide, 12” Long, and 2 ¾” deep. The prior Statement of Work had a different dimension for Deep as 2 ½”. We designed and built our case to the prior requirements. We request option in the specification for Deep to range from 2 ¾” to 2 ½”.

Answer: The dimensions listed on the SOW are maximum dimensions.

Question: Solicitation Reference. Page 47, Part A –

Past/Disqualification. The Solicitation requires “Rear sight tool (qty 1).” and “Front sight tool, if different than rear sight tool (qty

1). Question. We have two types of sight adjusting tools. One is user level and the other is depot level. Which should we supply with our proposal?

Answer: All samples required for submission are listed in the

Solicitation, Subpart 4. This does not include sight adjustment tools.

The section referenced in the question above only requires a self-certifying document verifying the vendor’s capability to provide these items upon contract award.

Question: SOW 4.10.25 Is pressurized air cooling allowed during any portion of this test cycle?

Answer: All requirements are listed in SOW Section 4.10.25. There nothing that would prohibit pressurized air cooling.

Question: When does CBP estimate to complete the Phase 1

Technical Review? We would like to have an estimated time for when the Phase 2 Technical Samples may need to be delivered.

Answer: CBP anticipates contacting vendors selected for Phase 2 on or around the week of October 1st. Samples will be requested within one week of contact by the Contracting Officer informing the Vendor of their selection for Phase 2.

Question: SOW 4.14 Barcode and Labels – Please confirm that the pistol box labels will only be required on production pistols (as is specified for the serial numbers in Section 4.13.1).

Answer: The barcode and labels are only required for items delivered on contract. Samples are not required to adhere to the barcode/label format required of contract delivery pistols.

Question: SOW 4.1.1.3 Cable Gun Lock – Can the CBP confirm that a keyed cable lock, with a similar length and size cable, is considered “equal”? If not, what other characteristics are required for equivalency?

Answer: Cable gun locks which are equal in size, locking mechanism, and strength, will be considered “equal”. Differing lengths are not considered “equal”.

Question: Solicitation Volume I, Subpart 2 – “Offeror shall include a description of the… technical characteristics satisfying each requirement of this solicitation.” Can the CBP confirm that, in this case, the “solicitation” is actually referring to the SOW and, in particular, the technical requirements contained in Section 4.0? (In this instance it would be awkward to consider the 51 pages of the SF1449 as the “solicitation”).

Answer: Yes. Volume I – Technical Proposal (Phase 1) of the solicitation, Subpart 2, refers to the technical specifications and requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW).

Question: Solicitation Volume I, Subpart 2 – “Offeror shall include a description of the… technical characteristics satisfying each requirement of this solicitation.” Can the CBP confirm that for the specific Section 4.10, the NIJ lab test report and documentation, will fulfill this requirement? (We would document Sections 4.1-9 and 4.11-24)

Answer: Yes. For Volume I – Technical Proposal (Phase 1) of the solicitation, Subpart 2, the Vendor may omit Section 4.10 of the SOW or note “Reference NIJ Data Sheets” for this section. The NIJ lab test data will fulfil the requirement for section 4.10.

Question: Will the CBP’s previous answers to Industry questions still be valid unless the final Solicitation documents contradict or supersedes them?

Answer: Yes. CBP’s answers to industry (2018 RFI Answers) posted to FedBizOpps on February 20, 2018, remain valid unless specifically contradicted by the Solicitation

Question: Solicitation Volume I, Subpart 5 – Obstructed Bore. Can the CBP clarify what it means to provide the photographs and barrels

“with a tamper proof seal”? How is the seal to be applied to the photos and barrels?

Answer: The requirement of a tamper-proof seal refers specifically to the tested barrel. The barrel must be marked by the NIJ laboratory with a tamper-proof seal to verify that photographed barrel is the same as the barrel received by CBP.

Question: Solicitation Volume I, Subpart 5 – Obstructed Bore. Given that the photographs will already be included in the NIJ lab test report and data, can the CBP clarify the intent and format of these additional 4-axis photographs? Should we simply print the images on photographic paper?

Answer: The Government Technical Evaluation Committee will use photographs for review of test results. High quality printed photographs are acceptable for submission.

Question: Solicitation Volume I, Subpart 5 – X-Ray. Given that the photographs will already be included in the NIJ lab test report and data, can the CBP confirm that all we need do is print the images on high quality 8x10” photographic paper?

Answer: High quality printed photographs of the x-ray are acceptable for submission.

Question: The Solicitation, on page 36 of 51, states that “Volume III, Past Performance, shall each be submitted directly by the references

(not the Offeror) in an original hard copy and also an email copy to…”. However, on page 40 of 51, it states that “The Offeror’s past performance proposal shall address corporate past performance in performing projects similar in size and scope to this requirement.”

Can CBP clarify if it wants a narrative explanation in Volume III in addition to the questionnaires?

Answer: Have the reference, person completing the reference, send a signed copy via email to david.myers@cbp.dhs.gov and the offeror also include shall send a hard copy in Volume III. Volume III is for the questionnaires. Place your narrative in volume three with the past performance questionnaires.

Question: SOW 4.11.2 Quality Control Plan. Can the CBP clarify if the detailed QC Plan is required with the proposal or upon contract award? (We ask because all of the other paragraphs in this section appear to be post-award requirements).

Answer: The complete plan can be provided upon potential contract award. However, the vendor should include a description of its approach to satisfying the requirement in Volume I, Subpart 2 of its solicitation package.

Question: SOW 4.16.1 Production Capacity. What information/documentation does the CBP require to demonstrate our ability to manufacture a minimum of 3,500 firearms per month?

Answer: A Self-Certifying document will be sufficient.

Question: It is our assumption that in addition to the Past

Performance Questionnaires required to be submitted by the references, the Offeror is also required to submit a Past Performance

Volume in accordance with the Instructions in Section 4. Proposal Volume Content, Volume III Past Performance, on page 40 of the RFP. Is this assumption correct?

Answer: Yes, the vendor shall submit Volume III with signed copies of the past performance questionnaire by the reference.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to have the Offeror’s Past Performance references mail a hard copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire?

Answer: Have the reference email a signed copy to david.myers@cbp.dhs.gov and also, as the offeror, submit a hard copy of the signed past performance questionnaire in Volume III.

Question: Is the Offeror required to submit an exploded view diagram with the proposal (per SOW 4.8.8)?

Answer: While this specific section of the solicitation does not pertain to an exploded view diagram, Subpart 2 does state, “Offeror shall include a description of the Offeror’s approach and technical characteristics satisfying each requirement of this solicitation”. This means either providing the diagram in this section or addressing your approach to providing the diagram upon potential award.

Question: We respectfully request that the Government clarify this statement. Is the Offeror required to include the PPQs with Volume 1?

Answer: Offeror is not required to place past performance questionnaires in Volume I.

Question: Per 4.2.3 Length, we understand that Pistol #1 shall not exceed 8.10”. We developed a more ergonomic grip with an extended beaver tail that slightly increases overall length. Would the Government consider increasing the overall length requirement in 4.2.3 to 8.25” to accommodate the ability to submit the ergonomic grip option?

Answer: Yes, in order to facilitate competition and reduce restrictions on submissions, CBP will modify the SOW for this section only (Pistol #1 only). CBP will increase the maximum length to 8.50”.

mailto:david.myers@cbp.dhs.gov