Vendors Inquiries Attachment-4-23-10-.pdf

Amendment 003

Interested Vendor Inquiries

Question 1: B-2 Award Scenario. Award Scenario IV, Type 1, Year 3, 4 –

Vendor “B” is noted as receiving both lot 6 & 7.

BEP Response: The typographical error has been corrected and was incorporated into the solicitation issued on February 1, 2010.

Question 2: B-3, Minimum and Maximum Quantities by Award Scenario.

Interested vendor is concerned that these quantities could be too low.

BEP Response: The minimum and maximum quantities are the correct estimated projections.

Question 3: B-3, Minimum and Maximum Quantities by Award Scenario, Scenarios 2, 3, & 4, Type 1. Without quantities by denomination, how will division of Type 1 be determined under the two vendor scenario?

BEP Response: The percentages listed in the award scenarios have been reflected in the minimum and maximums by the estimated quantities per denomination. Award Scenarios 2, 3, & 4 identify Type 1 as divided between two vendors and therefore the minimums and maximum quantities for those scenarios in B-3 are divided to reflect the Type 1 paper estimates by percent.

Question 4: CLINs 46, 56, 66 & 76. These CLINs reference Type IV $100, this paper type should be Type V $100.

BEP Response: Typographical error corrected via Amendment 001

Question 5: F5 Deliverables (b) (1) Monthly Progress Report Regarding

Acquisition and/or Modification of Equipment/Facilities. In the event of award of a contract, this request is unnecessary.

BEP Response: Requirement removed via Amendment 001

Question 6: CLINs. The lack of CLINs as “place holders” limits the BEP’s ability to order future new designs.

BEP Response: Section H-14 entitled, Changes allows for the BEP to incorporate future new designs, if applicable.

Question 7: Page 40, sentence #1. Misspelling, “the unit price per sheet by 32 to drive”, should be “the unit price per sheet by 32 to derive”.

Question 8: H-24 Corporate Guarantee. In the event of award of a contract, this request is unnecessary.

BEP Response: Section H-24 entitled, Corporate Guarantee should be completed by offerors in which this section is applicable.

Question 9: H-27 Corrective Action Report. Typographical error – “any root cause letters” noted twice.

Question 10: Page 45, (b) E-Material, paragraph 3. Typographical error “base don”, should be “based on”

Question 11: H-29 Continuous Improvement Program. Changes have been made to this clause. It is recommended the continued use of current language.

BEP Response: Section H-29 of the solicitation as issued on February 1, 2010 has the same language as the language in the current contract.

Question 12: 3.1.1.1 Contamination “The paper shall not contain ferromagnetic material.” Ferromagnetic material is inherent in the paper making process. Interested vendor maintains that this clause cannot be achieved.

BEP Response: The BEP will change Attachments A, B, and C to read as follows:

The paper shall not contain ferromagnetic particulates such that sheets will be rejected by the magnetic sensor on BEP sorting equipment, nor cause notes to be rejected by the magnetic sensor on currency verification equipment or cash handling equipment due to spurious magnetic signals.

Question 13: 3.5.4 Requirements for Printed Work. Interested vendor maintains that all the “shall” requirements within this section need to be changed to “should.” The Contractor has no control over the variables introduced during the BEP’s printing process.

BEP Response: The “shall” requirements of Section 3.5.4 are identical to that of the current contract specifications. The quality and consistency of the currency paper supplied by the contractor is a factor in the requirements for printed work. Therefore, the language in paragraph 3.5.4 for the specifications will remain as is.

Question 14: 3.5.1.2 – “The paper shall not delaminate and shall not tear during the printing processes. The amount of lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper shall not affect the printing of the sheets to a degree that requires the offset press plates or blankets to be cleaned more than once every 10,000 consecutive sheets or the feed board on the offset or intaglio presses to be cleaned more than once every 1,200,000 consecutive sheets.”

Interested vendor maintains that this is an unacceptable change to the specifications.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 46 below.

Question 15: 3.5.3 Print Quality. “The quality of the printed intaglio images, typographic seals and serial numbers shall be equal to or exceed that of the BEP reference sheets.” This specification is based on print standards that the paper contractor does not influence, and therefore the specification is not appropriate.

BEP Response: This specification is identical to that of the current contract. The quality and consistency of the currency paper supplied by the contractor is a factor in the quality of the printed images.

Therefore, the language in paragraph 3.5.3 for the specifications will remain as is.

Question 16: 3.6 Physical Requirements, Table VIII. pH – this specification has been changed from 5.0 minimum to 5.5 minimum. Interested vendor maintains that this is an unacceptable change to the specifications.

BEP Response: The BEP will revise the specifications to change the pH requirement to 5.0 minimum.

Question 17: 3.6.17 Sheet Size and Squareness. “The edge of the sheet shall be considered straight when the gap at any point along the edge of the sheet and an object known to have a straight edge is less than 1.0 millimeters.” Interested vendor maintains that further discussions are necessary prior to agreement to this specification.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 48 below.

Question 18: 3.6.18 Frequency of Occurrence of Defects. Category A – The paper shall contain no more than one (1) occurrence per 100,000 sheets of the following defects: discolored areas or embedded foreign matter with an equivalent area of 1 millimeter squared

(mm2) or greater. These changes are outside the current capabilities of interested vendor. It is our opinion that compliance with these changes would have an adverse effect on efficiencies.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 49 below.

Question 19: 3.6.15 Formation “The paper shall not contain any holes.”

Interested vendor maintains that this is an unacceptable change to the specification.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 47 below.

Question 20: Attachment B, 3.2.2.3 Thread in Paper Visibility; Attachment C,

3.2.2.1.3 Embedded Thread in Paper Visibility; and Attachments B and C 4.2.3.22 Thread Visibility. Interested vendor takes exception to these specifications.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 50 below.

Question 21: 3.2.2.2 Windowed Security Threads; 3.2.2.2.7 Windowed Thread in Paper Stability, para. 2; 6.4.10 Bonded – definition. Further discussion to establish BEP expectation for “bonding” will be necessary prior to agreement to these specifications.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 51 below.

Question 22: 3.6.18 Frequency of Occurrence of Defects. Category C – “The paper shall contain no more than one (1) occurrence per 50,000 sheets of any of the following defects…distorted yet recognizable image on windowed thread.” Further discussion to establish BEP expectation for “distortion” will be necessary prior to agreement to these specifications.

BEP Response: See BEP response to question number 52 below.

Question 23: F-3 Delivery Period (1), (2), and (3). The proposed language of

“No later than” implies that the BEP can place orders and require deliveries between day 1 and day 30 or 45, depending on denomination. Interested vendor maintains that the wording should be “No sooner than”.

BEP Response: To support the BEP Production Schedules the language in Section

F-3 entitled, Delivery Period will remain as is.

Question 24: G-2 Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) –

Appointment and Authority (e). “If, in the opinion of the contractor, any directions of the COTR, or his/her designee, falls within the limitations in (c) above, the contractor shall immediately notify the contracting officer no later than the beginning of the next Government work day.” Interested vendor recommends that this be changed to “notify the contracting officer within 48 hours or the next Government work day, whichever is later.”

BEP Response: The DTAR clause in Section G-2 entitled, Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative (COTR) – Appointment and Authority, is a standard clause, for which there is no basis to deviate. Therefore, the language in the clause will remain as is.

Question 25: H-26 Data Regarding Manufacturing Conditions of Paper

Machine. Further discussion to establish the BEP's expectation of

"data" will be necessary prior to agreement to this clause.

BEP Response: This is not a question but a statement and therefore cannot be answered. Please see Section L-14 entitled, Exceptions to

Solicitation Terms and Conditions for further clarification.

Question 26: 3.1.1 Composition "Fluorescent dyes, pigments, or optical brighteners shall not be added to the pulp or paper during manufacture." Interested vendor requests clarification of the BEP’s interpretation of “fluorescent dyes”.

BEP Response: According to the Dictionary of Paper, “fluorescent dyes” is defined as follows: “Fluorescent dyes are synthetic dyestuffs used for enhancing the brightness of uncolored paper. These materials absorb ultraviolet light and re-emit it at a higher wavelength

(usually in the violet end of the spectrum) thus increasing the

“blueness” and “brightness” of the paper as seen by the eye.”

Question 27: 3.5.2 Processing "The paper shall be suitable for processing printed sheets and notes on inspection and packaging equipment at production speeds." The paper contractor has no control over the elements that could impact production and equipment speeds.

BEP Response: The quality and consistency of the currency paper supplied by the contractor is a factor in how the printed sheets and notes will process. Therefore, the language in paragraph 3.5.2 for the specifications will remain as is.

Question 28: 3.5.2.1 "The paper shall feed smoothly at all inspection and packaging equipment speeds." The paper contractor has no control over the elements that could impact production and equipment speeds.

BEP Response: The quality and consistency of the currency paper supplied by the contractor is a factor in how the printed sheets and notes will process. Therefore, the language in paragraph 3.5.2.1 for the specifications will remain as is.

Question 29: 3.6.11 Color "The color of both sides of the paper should be visually indistinguishable and shall be within the CIELAB values listed below ..." Interested vendor maintains that further discussions are necessary prior to agreement on this change.

BEP Response: This is not a question but a statement and therefore cannot be

Question 30: 3.6.13 Chemical Resistance, Table IV. Perchloroethylene is referenced; according to the BEP's STM, this chemical is tetrachloroethylene.

BEP Response: Perchloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene is nomenclature for the same compound. However, to keep the nomenclature consistent, the BEP will change the specifications to match the STM.

Question 31: 4.2.3.9 Fluorescence, Table VII. Under 4.2.3.9, fluorescence is a specification requirement; however, it is not referenced in Table

VII.

BEP Response: (Type I) - The specification will be changed to reference fluorescence in Table VII.

(Type IV and V) - The specification will be changed to reference fluorescence in Table XII.

Question 32: C.3.6.1 General "The BEP retains the right to reject any material that may potentially cause an injury or adverse health effect upon its employees. Injury effects include but are not limited to cuts and punctures. Adverse health effects include, but are not limited to cuts and punctures. Adverse health effects include, but are not limited to: headache; eye, dermal, nasal, or throat irritation;

sensitization; nausea, and dizziness." The paper contractor has no control over how the BEP's employees handle this product, nor do they have access to information related to employee sensitivities.

BEP Response: BEP employees have experienced serious health effects from vendors' samples during past BEP solicitations. To protect employees and consistent with the OSHA General Duty as applicable to the BEP, this requirement will not be amended.

Question 33: C.3.6.7 Energy/Water/Recovered Materials Usage Policy "The

Contractor shall make every effort to provide the most environmentally friendly materials to the Bureau." Interested vendor recommends the following as a change to this requirement

"The Contractor should make every reasonable effort to provide".

BEP Response: This requirement will not be amended.

Question 34: 3.2.2 Sheet Orientation "By definition, the upper edge is the

"leading edge" of the sheet and the lower edge is the trailing edge".

Type I paper is not notched, therefore there is no way to define the

"leading edge" from the "trailing edge".

BEP Response: Section 3.2.2 and all references to “leading edge” and “trailing edge” and “obverse” in Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 will be removed from Attachment A.

Question 35: 3.2.2.2.2 Windowed Thread in Paper Image (Size and Shape) "The size and shape of the images on the exposed portions of the windowed thread shall be within the limits established by the reference templates." Reference templates or sheets will need to be established. This will need to be added to 4.2.1.

BEP Response: The requirement that reference sheets or templates be established for the inspection of windowed thread images (size and shape) is already in Section 4.2.1.

Question 36: 3.2.2.2.10 Windowed Thread in Paper Resistance to Chemicals

"After the thread in paper is rubbed with the chemicals, the images on the thread shall not be significantly degraded or eliminated".

Interested vendor maintains that further discussions are necessary prior to agreement to this specification.

BEP Response: Since this specification is identical to that of the current contract, the language will remain as is.

Question 37: 3.5.1.1 "The stacks of paper shall remain stable during the process of loading the stack onto the press and on the press stack lift during the printing process." The paper contractor has no control over the handling of paper during the BEP's printing process. Interested vendor recommends this requirement be changed to "should".

BEP Response: The quality and consistency of the currency paper supplied by the contractor is a factor in how the sheets will process. Therefore, the language in paragraph 3.5.1.1 for the specifications will remain as is.

Question 38: 3.6.18 Category D "Windowed thread defects: non-embedded or partially embedded threads (surface threads) on the reverse side of the paper; non-embedded or partially embedded threads (surface threads) in areas where the thread is embedded on the obverse side of the paper; or embedded or partially embedded threads in areas where the thread is exposed on the obverse side of the paper."

Interested vendor believes that the intent of this requirement is understood, however clarification is necessary.

Question 39: 4.2 Responsibility for Inspections and Testing "As a minimum, the contractor shall use inspection equipment capable of meeting the requirements of Section 3.6.18." Interested vendor has taken exception to Section 3.6.18 in the letter dated December 2, 2009.

BEP Response: This is not a question but a statement and therefore cannot be

Question 40: 3.2.1.2 E-material "The mean of the offline E-material sensor readings (offline quality control unit (OFQCU) densitometer) on cross-web samples shall be..." Interested vendor has pointed out inconsistencies in the readings of the OFQCUs during prior conversations with the BEP. Interested vendor recommends that this "shall" be changed to "should".

BEP Response: Interested vendor’s recommendation is acceptable. The BEP will change Attachments B and C accordingly.

Question 41: 3.2.3 Watermarks Variation in the size and appearance of the watermarks in Type IV and Type V paper shall be the same as that of the BEP reference sheets. Interested vendor maintains that no two watermarks can be identical in size and appearance. This specification should read "watermarks in Type IV and Type V paper should be similar".

BEP Response: The BEP will change the Type IV and Type V specifications to read as follows: “Variations in the size and appearance of the watermarks in [Type IV and Type V] paper should be the same as that established by the BEP reference sheets.”

Question 42: 3.6.14 Appearance and Tactile Characteristics The appearance and tactile characteristics of the Type IV and Type V shall be the same as that of the BEP reference sheets. Interested vendor maintains that this specification should not be changed from the current verbiage "shall be within the limits established within the reference sheets." Under normal operating conditions, the requirement for identical sheets is not realistic.

BEP Response: The BEP will change the specifications to read as follows: ...shall be within the limits established by the BEP reference sheets….

Question 43: 3.8.3.2 Cross Web Samples. "The contractor shall retain a cross web sample from each master roll turn-up from which shipped paper is manufactured for a minimum period of one year."

Interested vendor requests clarification of this requirement prior to agreement to this specification.

Question 44: 4.2.3 Table XII, Group A Test Methods "Group A tests shall be performed on areas of the unprinted paper free from security thread and watermark." Areas that include watermarks and thread cannot be avoided. Interested vendor maintains that this requirement should be moved to Table XIII.

BEP Response: This is not a question but a statement and therefore cannot be

Question 45: 3.1.1.1 Contamination. “The paper shall not contain ferromagnetic materials.”

Issue: Meeting this new specification is impractical.

Ferromagnetic material is inherent in the paper making process.

Equipment used to manufacture paper commonly contains iron and/or other magnetizable metals. Over time, particles from equipment and processes are released into the manufacturing operation. While interested vendor has introduced tools, such as magnetic traps, into the manufacturing process, these serve only as indicators of inclusions, 100% removal cannot be obtained.

Recommendation: “Inclusion of ferromagnetic materials shall be minimized.”

BEP Response: The BEP will change Attachments A, B, and C to read as follows:

The paper shall not contain ferromagnetic particulates such that sheets will be rejected by the magnetic sensor on BEP sorting equipment, nor cause notes to be rejected by the magnetic sensor on currency verification equipment or cash handling equipment due to spurious magnetic signals.

Question 46: 3.5.1.2 “The paper shall not delaminate and shall not tear during the printing processes. The amount of lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper shall not affect the printing of the sheets to a degree that requires the offset press plates or blankets to be cleaned more than once every 10,000 consecutive sheets or the feed board on the offset or intaglio presses to be cleaned more than once every 1,200,000 consecutive sheets.

Issue: This specification requires the Contractor to meet quality standards which are not measurable through any established testing methods. Therefore, compliance, without a testing method, cannot be certified.

Recommendation: The following change, “shall” to “should”, would be acceptable: “The amount of lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper should not affect the printing….”

BEP Response: The BEP will change Attachment A to read as follows:

Lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper shall not affect the printing of the sheets to a degree that requires the feed board on the intaglio presses to be cleaned more than once every 1,200,000 consecutive sheets.

The BEP will change Attachment B to read as follows:

Lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper hall not affect the printing of the sheets to a degree that requires the offset press plates or blankets to be cleaned more than once every 10,000 consecutive sheets or the feed board on the offset or intaglio presses to be cleaned more than once every 1,200,000 consecutive sheets.

The BEP will change Attachment C to read as follows:

Lint, dust, fuzz, or any other particles on the surface of the paper shall not affect the printing of the sheets to a degree that requires the offset press plates or blankets to be cleaned more than once every 8,000 consecutive sheets or the feed board on the offset or intaglio presses to be cleaned more than once every 1,200,000 consecutive sheets.

Question 47: 3.6.15 Formation “The paper shall not contain any holes.”

Issue: The requirement exceeds process capability. Minute holes, i.e., pin holes, are not uncommon and cannot be removed with absolute certainty.

Recommendation: An acceptable alternative would be to change the “shall” to “should”, or a size definition, i.e., holes greater than

X mm in diameter.” To determine a definition for “holes”, it is recommended that the Bureau and Interested vendor work together to understand and identify product and process capabilities.

BEP Response: The BEP will remove the requirement that “the paper shall not contain any holes” from Attachments A, B, and C to and add

“holes” to Section 3.6.18, Category A of Attachment A and

Section 3.6.18, Category B of Attachments B and C.

Question 48: 3.6.17 Sheet Size Squareness “The edge of the sheet shall be considered straight when the gap at any point along the edge of the sheet and an object known to have a straight edge is less than 1.0 millimeters.”

Issue: This requirement exceeds interested vendor’s current process capability.

Recommendation: Interested vendor supports the Bureau’s need for a straight edge cut, however, current process capabilities do not allow for compliance. Interested vendor will continue to work toward meeting this objective. A timeframe for completion of this project is not yet known. Regular updates can be made available.

Interested vendor recommends changing the “shall” to a “should” until capability to comply can be established.

BEP Response: The BEP will change the specification to read as follows: “The gap at any point along the edge of the sheet and an object known to have a straight edge should be less than 1.0 millimeters.”

Question 49: 3.6.18 Frequency of Occurrence of Defects. Category A – “The paper shall contain no more than one (1) occurrence per 100,000 sheets of the following defects: discolored areas or embedded foreign matter with an equivalent area of 1 millimeter squared

(mm ) or greater.”

Issue: This specification is outside the current capabilities of interested vendor. All processes, including but not limited to, raw materials sourcing, raw materials processing, manufacturing, and quality inspections have been established in support of the current specification at “3 millimeters in diameter.” Interested vendor maintains that a minimum requirement of area “1 millimeter square” would have an impact on efficiencies and potentially overall product consistency.

Recommendation: Maintain the current specification, while at the same time work through a program to identify a new specification based on need and capability.

BEP Response: The BEP will change the specification to read as follows: “The paper shall contain no more than one (1) occurrence per 100,000 sheets of the following defects: discolored areas or embedded foreign matter with an equivalent area of 3 millimeter squared

(mm ) or greater.”

Question 50: Attachment B, 3.2.2.3 Thread in Paper Visibility. Attachment C,

3.2.2.1.3 Embedded Thread in Paper Visibility, “When viewed in reflected light under the lighting conditions specified in Section

4.2.3.22, the embedded threads and the alpha-numeric characters and graphic images on the embedded threads shall not be visible on intaglio face printed sheets. Attachments B and C, 4.2.3.22

Thread Visibility, “The visibility of the thread will be determined when viewed under various lighting conditions such as daylight, cool white fluorescent, and incandescent.”

Issue: Thread “visibility” is a function of banknote design, embedded thread design, and thread position in paper. The ability to control the position of the embedded thread in the thickness direction as potentially required in this specification is outside of known production capabilities.

Recommendation: Thread visibility requirements should be defined by the specification “there shall be no more than 1.5 millimeters of the thread not covered by paper fibers.”

BEP Response: The BEP will change Section 3.2.2.3 of Attachment B to read as follows: "When viewed in reflected light under the lighting conditions specified in Section 4.2.3.22, the embedded threads and the alpha-numeric characters and graphic images on the embedded threads should not be visible on intaglio face printed sheets."

The BEP will change Section 3.2.2.1.3 of Attachment C to read as follows: "When viewed in reflected light under the lighting conditions specified in Section 4.2.3.22, the embedded threads and the alpha-numeric characters and graphic images on the embedded threads should not be visible on offset printed sheets."

There will be no change to Section 4.2.3.22 of Attachments B and

C.

Question 51: 3.2.2.2 Windowed Security Threads, “The exposed portions of the thread shall be bonded to the surface of the paper and the paper where the thread is embedded (covered on both sides with paper fibers) shall be bonded to the surface of the thread.” 3.2.2.2.7

Windowed Thread in Paper Stability, para. 2, “After the paper is printed and processed the embedded portions of the thread shall remain embedded in the finished note and the exposed portions of the thread shall remain bonded to the surface of the paper. In addition, after the paper is printed and processed, the paper where the thread is embedded should remain bonded to the surface of the thread in the finished note.” 6.4.10 Bonded – Definition

“The term “bonded” with regard to the windowed thread is defined as no separation of the thread from the substrate and no separation of the substrate from the thread.”

Recommendation: The bonding of windowed thread in paper is a function of the product design (OVT).

BEP Response: Since the definition of “bonded” is the same as that of the current contract, the language will remain as is.

Question 52: 3.6.18 Frequency of Occurrence of Defects, “The paper shall contain no more than one (1) occurrence per 50,000 sheets of any of the following defects…distorted yet recognizable image on windowed thread.”

Recommendation: Mutually agree to standard test methods, evaluation criteria and reference standards on unprinted paper must be established before a defect such as “distortion” can be defined.

BEP Response: The BEP will remove the “distorted yet recognizable image on windowed thread” language from Section 3.6.18.