SF-30 amendment 4.pdf

SPECIAL NOTICE

USDA, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, COMMODITY OPERATIONS

The following questions/comments were submitted during the pre-proposal conference held in Kansas City on April 25, 2011, or in writing for RFP AG-INTP-S-11-9984.

1. In Section A, Block 8, is the solicitation number as shown, AG-INTP-S-10-9984, correct?

Answer: No, this is a typographical error and will be corrected by issuance of an amendment.

2. Section C, part C.1.1.1.A., page 10 – it is stated that “No alcohol or any known allergen other than the ingredients in the specified product formulation shall be used in the manufacture of these products.”

Can A-20 be produced on equipment where known allergens (i.e. peanuts) have been processed, as long as reasonable precautions are taken between processes?

Answer: The Emergency Food Products can be produced in the same facilities and on the same equipment where peanuts or other allergens are processed as long as all appropriate and reasonable precautions are taken to avoid cross-contamination. The processing requirements in section C of the request for proposal require the product to be processed in accordance with FDA Current Good Manufacturing Practices (21 CFR Part 110), HACCP (Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points), ISO (International Organization for Standardization), or other standards that assure the quality of the product.

3. Section C, part C.1.1.1.A., page 10 – Can a segregated and controlled process system to produce peanut products occur at the same time as A-20 production, as long as reasonable precautions are taken?

Answer: See the answer to Question 2 above.

4. Section C, C.1.1.1, part C – To the best of our knowledge/research, we have not been able to identify a domestic source for pea protein isolate. Can you advice on any known domestic source? We assume that it is appropriate to seek an exemption for this commodity if U.S. sourcing is not possible.

Answer: Based on the Government’s research into the availability of pea protein isolate, it will waive the domestic origin requirements for pea protein isolate.

5. Section C, part C.1.1.1.C, page 10 – Do the ingredient specifications have tolerances (+/-), as long as the nutritional and organoleptic goals of the product are met? For example, can we substitute Cream Powder 72% fat for the specified 76% fat as long as the nutritional and organoleptic goals of the product are met?

Answer: Intentional substitution of ingredients resulting in a change to formulation is not allowed.

Normal variation from specification in the ingredients is expected and allowed as long as it does not result in nonconformance to the analytical and salient characteristics for the end item. The contractor will be required to produce product that meets the specifications as provided in the solicitation and any resulting contract because that is the product that has been determined to meet shelf life and consumer acceptability requirements.

6. Section C, part C.1.1.1.C, page 10 – It is indicated that the isolated pea protein must have 82% protein.

Is the percent protein calculated on a dry basis?

Answer: Yes, the present protein is to be calculated on a dry basis.

7. Section D, Part D.4.1.1., subpart 2, page 20 – Regarding the A-20 Primary Packaging Requirements:

a. Is there flexibility to alter the dimensions and the fabrication method (2 end seals versus 4 side seals) of the sachet to reduce size and improve efficiency?

b. Would you consider a user-friendly “daily dosage” strip (i.e. perforated strips of 9 pouches each)?

Answer: The solicitation contains detailed material requirements for the pouches but does not specify their construction. Pouch construction and closure can vary as long as the end product meets the materials specifications in Section D and the performance requirements in Section E. Pouches must be separate and individual packages.

8. Section D, Part D.4.1.1., subpart 3, page 20 – Regarding the A-20 Secondary Packaging Requirements:

a. Can the size of the box be reduced to accompany the more efficient pouch?

b. Would you consider a redesign of the package closure for more efficient packing?

Answer: For standardization purposes the dimensions and construction of secondary and tertiary containers must be as specified in section D of the solicitation.

9. Section D, Part D.4.1.1., subpart 4, page 21 – Regarding the A-20 Tertiary Packaging Requirements:

a. Please specify construction specifications for the tertiary carton.

b. Is it acceptable to print the standard information (i.e. Vendor Contract Number, Best if Used

By Date, Date of Manufacture and Lot number) in our own standard format?

Answer: Requirements for the tertiary carton and markings are shown in section D of the solicitation.

There are no additional construction specifications other than those found in that Section.

The construction specifications are to be determined by the offeror, as long as the corrugated fiberboard carton provides a tight fit for the specified number of primary containers, is closed properly (hot melt adhesive or clear tape), and protects the product from loss or damage during shipment.

Marking specifications are provided and markings must comply with the exhibits to meet the branding and marking requirements of USAID.

10 Section D, page 23 – Regarding A-20 Paste Secondary Package (Box Patter) Markings, is there consideration for the artwork & printing codes to be organized horizontally on sachet, as long as the integrity of the information is maintained?

Answer: The detailed marking requirements shown in the exhibit are in compliance with USAID branding and marking policy. Any modifications would have to be approved by USAID in advance to ensure compliance with agency policy.

11. Section C.1.1.1.G., C.1.1.2.H., and C.1.1.3.H. all stipulate that the product shall be no more than 45 days old on date of shipment. We request that this timeframe be lengthened to more closely approximate the industry standard.

Answer: The Government will consider lengthening the timeframe to 90 days.

12. Section D.4.1.1.2—our packaging has a “fin seal” on the back, not a four-sided seam as your sample has. This amounts to no significant variation from your specifications, and allows us to deliver a safe product with adequate shelf life, but, use less packaging material. Is a “fin seal” OK?

Answer: The solicitation contains detailed material requirements for the pouches but does not specify their construction. Pouch construction and closure can vary as long as the end product meets the materials specifications in section D and the performance requirements in section E. Pouches must be separate and individual packages.

13. Section D.4.1.1.4.B(4), D.4.1.2.4.A(4), and D.4.1.3.4.B(4) stipulate that pallets should be suitable for use in the international shipment of food products. Do the pallets have to be heat-treated and/or corner-boarded?

Answer: To be suitable for international shipment means that the pallets must comply with guidelines for the regulation wood packaging materials in international trade. Corner boards or pallet caps are not specifically required, but the palletized load must facilitate the safe handling and transportation of the packaged product, as a unit, without loss or damage; therefore the unit load should be able to withstand stacking of two pallets high for containerized shipment.

14. Section E, Inspection and Acceptance. How are the production lot sizes determined regarding the sampling protocol?

Answer: The size of a production lot is at the Contractor’s discretion. A production lot can be as small as a batch formulation or as large as the entire amount of production until product change-over; however, a lot should not exceed one day’s production. The sampling plans specified in section E account for differing lot sizes by increasing or decreasing the number of samples as appropriate.

15. Section F, Deliveries or performance, Subsection F.19 Delivery Location. Can the offeror quote on an f.o.b. origin basis due to unstable fuel costs with shipping rates?

Answer: The RFP already requests offers for f.o.b. origin, so, yes the offeror can provide a price on an f.o.b. origin basis. In addition to that ship basis, the RFP requests offer prices for f.o.b.

destination to two specific locations, Houston, Texas, and Miami, Florida. The RFP provides that the Contractor may have to deliver to other domestic locations on different ship bases with the Government compensating the Contractor for transportation expense. The Government will consider folding the two specific f.o.b. destinations at F.19.2 and 3 into F.19.4. Any deliveries made under F.19.4 would be compensated as explained in F.19.5.

16. Section L.2, Submission of Proposals. Can the deadline for receipt of proposals be extended for two to four weeks?

Answer: The Government has already issued amendment 3 to extend the proposal due date to June

13, 2011.

17. Section L, Exhibit 1, Price Proposal. Given that we are experiencing extreme commodity fluctuations, is consideration being given to the fact that prices quoted in June could be impossible to meet in October?

Answer: Offerors may offer firm fixed prices for base year and the option year. A new Price

Proposal sheet allowing for option year pricing will be issued by amendment.

17. Section J, Attachment 2, page 106 – It is stated that “The Contractor’s Sanitation Report…shall be provided by at least twice per month” or more frequently if required by the government.

a. For self-inspections using the facility’s own forms, what are the requirements for the self-inspection form and what are the credentials required of the person conducting the self-inspection?

b. If the bi- monthly plant audit is done internally by the contractor, does it have to be verified by a third party inspection service or a regulatory agency?

c. Does the contractor’s point system qualify in place of the government’s form/point system?

Answer: a. The requirements for a Sanitation Report are provided in Attachment 2 on page 106.

The Government has not stipulated in the RFP any specific credentials for sanitation inspectors, but, it would expect that an offeror’s quality control plan would address any credentials it requires for the person conducting a self-inspection.

b. The Government has not stipulated in the RFP any specific third-party verification of sanitation inspections conducted by the contractor.

c. With respect to the Sanitation Report and the use of a self-report rather than the Form FGIS 952, the contractor would not be obligated to utilize the point system found in

FGIS952.