Attachment_4f,_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 regarding solicitation number 70Z085-19-Q-P45C6200 for the Coast Guard WTGB 140 Foot Cutter propulsion control modification. Offerors are asked to submit questions by July 15, 2019 to the contracting officer via email. The request for clarification form seeks clarification on paragraph 3.6.1, asking whether replacing obsolete boards on ADDvantage-32 Classic drives with ADDvantage-32 Plus drives and upgrading the obsolete Performance View diagnostic system to Performance View 2.0 meets the requirements as intended. The response proposes an alternative wording to resolve the issue.
Attachment 4f, 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
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. |
| PARA NO. |
DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.
PARA NO.
TITLE:
QUESTION: 3.6.1 – We believe that there may be a mistake in the text of this item. There are two areas of obsolescence to be addressed. The first regards the obsolete boards on the ADDVantage-32 Classic drives that control the motors and generators. A board replacement updates the Classic drives to the ADDVantage-32 Plus drives. The second regards the obsolete Performance View diagnostic system. This has been replaced by the Performance View 2.0 system which is referenced in Item 3.6.1. We believe that this is what the USCG is asking for. Is this correct?
RESPONSE:
Would the following change resolve the issue?
Replace, “Specifically, the ADD-32 shall be upgraded to PerformanceView2.0 as recommended by Nidec-Avtron.”
With, “Specifically, the ADD-32 shall be retrofitted, as previously recommended by Nidec-Avtron.”
Attachment 4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .