Attachment_4e,_Request_for_Clarification_WTGB.docx
DOCX document 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z085-19-Q-P45C6200
About this file
This document contains a request for clarification form and response related to solicitation number 70Z085-19-Q-P45C6200 from the Coast Guard for the WTGB 140 Foot Cutter Propulsion Control Modification. The solicitation seeks proposals to modify the propulsion control systems on WTGB-class cutters to standardize configurations across the fleet. Questions from offerors must be submitted using the attached request for clarification form by July 15, 2019 and sent to the email address provided. In this example question, the offeror asks if the PerformanceView 2.0 diagnostic data logger with long term storage is required or if lower cost options with less functionality and slower update times would be acceptable. The government response indicates it cannot specify a preferred platform and vendors should make their own judgments based on the solicitation requirements considering long term support and standardization across ships.
Attachment 4e, question & answer
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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
Ent cannot answet Offeror’s questions will be answered by an Amendment.
1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.
2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Submit requests not later than 15 July 2019
Offeror’s Name:
Date:
Question No.
WTGB 140 Foot Propulsion Controller Modification
| RFQ Number: |
| 70Z085-19-Q-P45C6200 |
| SOLICITATION SECTION: |
| 3.3 |
| PARA NO. |
DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.
PARA NO.
TITLE:
QUESTION: 3.3 – The data logger specification is somewhat broad.
With regard to the Performance View 2.0 Diagnostic data logger with the long term storage, there are other lower cost options with much less functionality, and slower update times. Is the PerformanceView 2.0 the desired platform for this function?
RESPONSE:
The Government cannot answer that question. Vendors should make the best choice for their proposal/quote, based upon the requests specified in the solicitation, especially considering obsolescence and long-term support of the system and its components. Standardized configuration control across all ships within a class can be beneficial; these cutters tend to “borrow” personnel for deployments as needed to augment understaffed crews making uniformity of the system beneficial.
Attachment 4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .