Attch 8. FA805122R0001 Q&A.pdf

FA8051-22-R-0001 F&ES PPE Ensemble

Comments and Q & A

1) Unfortunately our understanding is that our supplier must be a small business less than 500 employees. Our supplier (manufacturer) is Globe Mfging which is owned by MSA.

They are considered large business and it appears we do not qualify to bid. Based on the volume noted in the solicitation perhaps that should be reconsidered since Globe is largest manufacturer of Fire Fighting PPE and it certainly qualified to meet the performance and delivery requirements along with strong production agreements with the material suppliers. If we misunderstand this requirement please let us know.

This requirement is indeed set aside for a total small business and the offeror must be a small business manufacturer based on the size standard in block 10 of the SF1449. A small business non-manufacturer must meet a size standard of 500 employees and offer a product manufactured by a small business.

2) The SOW requires the products to be PFAS free which is available on the outer shell material and thermal liner. The manufacturer of the moisture barrier (Crosstech Black) is W.L.Gore and the product is not available PFAS free. We currently have no commitment that it will ever be available PFAS free.

A: If this is the case, this product will be unacceptable by the Government per the SOW.

There are available manufacturers producing PFOS/PFOA free materials.

3) We have not yet formally approached Globe with the 5.5 year pricing until item 1 is finalized but the timing of this solicitation will be very challenging for any supplier. The PPE industry has been impacted by substantial material price increases from their suppliers over the last 15 months. For example Globe has increased pricing in early 2021 10%, fall of 2021 12% and another price increase this April of 12%. The market has reported that our major competitors have increased over 35% in 2021. In addition the labor market for sewers has challenged the industry and backlogs are the largest they have ever been. I only share this for information on market conditions and does not indicate that we cannot meet the pricing and production requirements. However if a supplier is going to commit to this multiyear agreement the expected usage in the documents will be important to labor and material investments

A. We understand the PPE Industry cost escalation and inflation rates. The team has coordinated the quantities with the spend data from the current contract and reached out to the field to gauge anticipated fluctuations over the next 5 years to ensure accuracy of the ceiling quantities as best as practicable.

4. Section 6.2 F&ES PPE SOW

a. Please confirm that the use of the header “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)” in Section 6.2 of the SOW does not prevent offerors from utilizing a PTFE polymer. From our reading of Section 6.2, the PTFE polymer, while it falls under the larger umbrella of a “PFAS,” it is not one of the restricted ones listed in Section 6.2 (meaning not a “PFOA, PFOA precursors, PFOS, Gen X and related higher homologue chemicals”). Therefore, the PTFE polymer would be permitted. Please confirm.

A. You are correct. The PTFE can be confused to be in the PFAS family and although there may be trace amounts of non-polymer PFAS during the Durable water and oil repellent (DWR) treatment to moisture barriers, the levels are so low, the amounts are far lower than what the EPA determined to be safe. Unlike PFOA and PTFO, PTFE is not considered to be a health risk.

5. FAR 52.216.19 Order Limitations.

a. The maximum order requirement that small business contractors are required to meet in Section (b) of FAR 52.216.19 has significantly increased since the previous iteration of the contract. Would the Government consider reducing the single item and combination of items thresholds back to the previous limits (snapshot below)? We believe this reduction would permit small businesses to better organize their production lines, forecast manufacturing and to not exceed typical small business manufacturing capacity demands . The previous contract iteration included the following:

b. Section (d) of FAR 52.216.19 has significantly reduced the time allowed by contractors to return orders received in excess of the contract maximum order limit. Would the Government consider increasing the number of days from 15 to 30 days? We believe this additional time would allow contractors to accurately evaluate those excess orders, potentially change/move production lines, and seek other alternatives to meet the Government’s order requirements.

A. After conferring with the team, the Government stands on the order limitations stated within the clause.

6. While this is an Air Force contract, the SOW references the ability of Army/Navy to purchase through it. Can you please provide details on how the Army and Navy would be able to purchase from this contract? Do you have any forecasted amounts or number of firefighters expected from them?

A. This has been removed from the requirement and SOW.

7. SOW Section 6.4.5.2. This section states that the ordering entity will pay for contractor travel for sizing site visits. How is this invoiced and paid?

A. The ordering entity will pay for contractor travel as permitted by FAR 13.301 or the method deemed appropriate by the administrative contracting office (i.e., delivery order). The method of invoicing is subject to the contract vehicle used as described above.