Bidder Questions 2 - ITB #1114.docx

Bidder Questions ITB #1114 – Practice Ammunition

Does the State agree the most appropriate successor index is PCU3329933299 and/or WPU108?

Of the indexes that are still being updated regularly, these two appear to be the most appropriate The BLS Producer Price Index for Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing (PCU332992332992) remains active and in use. It is updated annually, with the next scheduled release on May 13, 2026. No change to the referenced index is warranted at this time. Should the index be discontinued in the future, the State will identify the most appropriate successor index through a contract amendment, as already provided for in Section 2.2 of Exhibit 2.

Further, can you confirm that any ammunition sold within Idaho that is not awarded as one of the 15 Line Items on Submittal Form B is done so outside this contract? And if sold outside this contract, can you confirm those purchases are not subject to Quarterly Fill Rate reporting as part of the 90% fill rate calculation?

It is our assumption that this contract only pertains to ammunition awarded, per vendor, as one of the 15 Line Items on Submittal Form B, and all other ammunition sold to the State of Idaho is procured outside this contract.

Confirmed. The resulting contract is limited to the line items listed on Submittal Form B. Ordering agencies and eligible public agencies may only procure ammunition through this contract for those awarded line items. Purchases of any other ammunition types are not permitted under this contract and are therefore not subject to any contract performance requirements, including the Quarterly Fill Rate reporting and the 90% fill rate calculation.

Ordering agencies sometimes send Purchase Orders before initially contacting the Contractor for shipping costs. If the ordering agency sends a PO but refuses to revise the PO to add the required shipping costs to meet their own delivery requirements, then we presume the Contractor has the right to reject the PO Confirmed. If an ordering agency declines to pay applicable freight charges necessary to meet their required delivery timeframe, the Contractor is not obligated to accept the purchase order. Ordering agencies are responsible for conducting due diligence prior to issuing a purchase order, including confirming the full scope of pricing, freight costs, and delivery timeframes with the Contractor before a PO is submitted. Section 7 of Exhibit 2 has been amended to reflect this. See the amended ITB for revised language.

Our presumption is, under this scenario, this Line Item would be included in the Quarterly Report as an applicable contract sale, but omitted from the Fill Rate calculation since the agency opted for a 90+ day delivery.

Further, we presume the delivery timeframe for this order is irrelevant towards the calculation for or against the 90% Fill Rate requirement.

The fill rate is calculated as the percentage of line items delivered in full and without substitution. Orders where the Contractor and ordering agency have mutually agreed in writing to a delivery timeframe exceeding 90 days ARO pursuant to Section 6.4 are not negatively counted in the fill rate calculation, provided the order is ultimately delivered in full and without substitution within the mutually agreed timeframe. For clarity, such orders remain applicable contract sales and must still be included in the Contractor's Quarterly Fill Rate report; they are simply excluded from the fill rate calculation itself for the quarter(s) in which the extended delivery timeframe applies. Sections 6.4 and 10 of Exhibit 2 have been amended to reflect this. See the amended ITB for revised language.

Our presumption is, under this scenario, this Line Item would be included in the Quarterly Report as an applicable contract sale, but intentionally omitted from the Fill Rate calculation since there is mutual agreement of a longer timeframe between the ordering agency and Contractor

Further, we presume the delivery timeframe for this order is irrelevant towards the calculation for or against the 90% Fill Rate requirement.

Confirmed. If an extended delivery timeframe is mutually agreed upon in writing between the Contractor and the ordering agency due to supply chain constraints or other documented factors, that agreement will not negatively affect the Contractor’s fill rate or any other performance metric under the contract, provided the order is ultimately delivered in full and without substitution within the mutually agreed timeframe. Sections 6.4 and 10 of Exhibit 2 have been amended to reflect this. See the amended ITB for revised language.

If the lead time is 90+ days and the eligible Public Agency (political subdivision) and Contractor mutually agree to a 90+ day delivery via documented supply chain constraints or cost savings, then it is unclear what the Idaho State Division of Purchasing would need to approve.

The Division of Purchasing does not require advance approval for lead time extensions exceeding 90 days ARO. Mutual written agreement between the Contractor and the ordering agency is sufficient to document the extension. The Division’s involvement is limited to instances where a documented performance concern has been identified. Section 6.4 of Exhibit 2 has been amended to reflect this. See the amended ITB for revised language.

Distributors are generally assigned states by the manufacturers by physical territory, and allowing public agencies from all other US states to use this contract would violate manufacturer-distributor contractual agreements.

Further, the intent of this contract appears to be to provide pricing to state or local public entities limited to within the State of Idaho.

The ITB has been amended to remove the reference to out-of-state cities and political subdivisions. Eligibility to use the resulting contract is limited to public agencies within the State of Idaho. Section 17 of Exhibit 2 has been amended accordingly. See the amended ITB for revised language.