ChemPOL III RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ChemPOL Recompete - Removing 2 Clauses
- Solicitation number
- SPE4A224R00020006
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation
About this file
This document is a set of Questions and Answers related to a federal contract opportunity for the ChemPOL III requirement. The key details are:
The solicitation is for the ChemPOL Recompete - Removing 2 Clauses, with Solicitation Number SPE4A224R00020006. It is being issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Aviation. The solicitation includes questions and answers on various topics such as page limitations, hazardous material documentation, pricing calculations, and the list of active National Stock Numbers (NSNs). The Government has updated several sections of the solicitation via amendments to provide clarification. Notable changes include removing two contract clauses - 52.247-60 Guaranteed Shipping Characteristics and 52.247-51 Evaluation of Export Offers - Alternate III.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment SPE4A224R0002-0006.pdf |
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
ChemPOL III RFP Questions
| No. | RFP Reference | Question | Government Response | ||
| 1 | Section L, 4.3.4, Page Limitations, Page 6 | This section states that 52.223-3, Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data and clause 252.223-7001, Hazard Warning Labels do not count towards the page limitations listed in Table 1. It does not specify a volume, should our response to these clauses be included as part of Volume VI, Contract Documentation? | Added 10.4.5 to Section L. The documention shall be provided with volume VI, Contract documentation. | ||
| 2 | Section L, 4.3.4, Page Limitations, Page 6 | This section states that 52.223-3, Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data and clause 252.223-7001, Hazard Warning Labels do not count towards the page limitations listed in Table 1. As per each clause, paragraphs (d) state, the apparently successful Offeror agrees to submit required documentation (Material Safety Data Sheet& Hazard Warning Labels) prior to award. Do you expect the required documentation to be submitted with the proposal submission or later, in final negotiations if successful? | Added 10.4.5.2 to Section L. The Government would like the information provided at time of proposal. | ||
| 3 | Section H, H-902 BACKORDER example calculations, Page 3 | Example calculations for Backorder disincentives appear to use incorrect Calendar Days Late for Category A and B. Can the Government validate the example calculations? | Updated the example via Amendment 0001 | ||
| 4 | RFP L19 SURGE AND SUSTAINMENT (S&S) - CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PLAN (CAP), Page 64 | The RFP includes DLAD Procurement Note L19. Should the Capability Assessment Plan (CAP) be included outside of page count as an Appendix to Volume VI? | Added 10.4.6 to Section L. The documention shall be provided with volume VI, Contract documentation. | ||
| 5 | Section M, 3.6.7, Total Evaluated Price, Page 8 | Section M provides and example of how the TEP will be calculated, including screen shots of an example spreadsheet. But the example does not include all pricing components (e.g. throughput) and an actual TEP model spreadsheet was not included as an attachment of the solicitation. Can the government provide a TEP model spreadsheet that includes all pricing components (material, management, throughput) so offerors can fully understand how the TEP will be calculated. | Updated attachment #2 to have a formula that calculates unit price with throughput charge and then calculates total price, less management fee. The management fee will be within the contract price volume of the response. Updated via Amendment 0001 | ||
| 6 | Section H, H-900 PRICING AND PAYMENT, Page 1 | The costs covered by Throughput Charge are primarily warehouse labor and freight and bear no relationship to the costs of petroleum or chemical products. Therefore, can the Throughput Charge instead be adjusted by EPA factors PCU4841224841221 general freight trucking, long distance less than truckload, and CIU2010000520000I, total compensation for private industry workers in transportation and material moving, each EPA factor weighted at 50%? This would ensure the Throughput Charge is adjusted by the most relevant EPA factors. | |||
| For example, NSN X's base price is $135: $100 for Material and $35 (35%) for Throughput Charge. If the Chem or POL Material EPA index were to increase by 5%, and the blended EPA index (above) for Throughput Charge were to increase by 2% the EPA-adjusted price would be computed as: ($100 x 1.05) + ($35 x 1.02) = $140.70. Without a separate EPA index for Throughput Charge as recommended the NSN X's base price would adjust to $141.75 ($135 x 1.05). | The Government's intent was to tie the Throughput Fee to a measure that would vary with volume on the contract. As the pricing indices will vary throughout the contract (going both up & down) and the Government can't predict which way indices will travel at any given time, the Government will not be adjusting its Throughput Fee equation. | ||||
| 7 | RFP L19 SURGE AND SUSTAINMENT (S&S) - CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT PLAN (CAP), Page 64 | The RFP includes DLAD Procurement Note L19. When will WICAP be populated for this solicitation? | The solicitation should be populated now. | ||
| 8 | Section M.3.4.1, Attachment 13, Attachment 2 | Section M.3.4.1 states the current contract has roughly 3,600 active NSNs and experiences between 13,000 and 17,000 delivery orders per month. The data in Attachment 13 shows 160,461 orders issued in 2023 (13,371 average per month) from a population of approximately 2,770 NSNs, which supports the solicitation’s delivery order volume estimate. However, Attachment 2 (Active NSNs) only includes 1,721 NSNs, which is far short of the actual number of NSNs with demand in 2023. Also, Attachment 13 shows approximately 60,000 orders were issued in 2023 for NSNs that are listed as inactive in Attachment 3, some individual NSNs having significant demand. For example, Inactive NSNs 011977693, 002865435, 002500926 and 002526383 each had more than 1,000 orders in 2023, and approximately 1,000 of the NSNs listed as inactive in Attachment 3 had demand in 2023. | |||
| Can the government clarify why only 1,721 NSNs are listed in Attachment 2 and why Attachment 3 lists around 1,000 NSNs that actually had demand in 2023? | Attachments 2 & 3 have been updated based on the latest data pull via Amendment 0002 | ||||
| 9 | Section L.9.3, Attachment 2 | Regarding Attachment 7 - Section L, pricing instructions, paragraph 9.3, is the Management Charge only intended to cover contractor support for the 1,721 active NSNs listed in Attachment 2 or does it cover contract support for any number of active and inactive NSNs that may be supported on the contract throughout the period of performance? | The management charge covers all NSNs that may be supported on the contract throughout the period of performance. | ||
| 10 | Section L.9.6, Attachment 2 | Regarding Attachment 7 - Section L, pricing instructions, paragraph 9.6, will the awardee’s Throughput Charge percentage be applied to the material price of any NSN added to Attachment 2 during the term of the contract and not only to the material prices of the initially awarded 1,721 active NSNs? | The Throughput Charge percentage will be applied to the material price of any NSN added to Attachment 2. | ||
| 11 | Attachment 7, Section L, 4.4.2 | Would the government consider allowing 11x17 (foldout) pages for detailed graphics? | Yes. Section L updated via Amendment 0003 | ||
| 12 | Attachment 5 - PID Data | Attachment 5 - PID Data provides technical data to support the pricing of the NSNs in Attachment 2. Amendment 0002 increased the number of NSNs in Attachment 2. Will the government issue an updated Attachment 5 - PID Data that includes all of the NSNs in the revised Attachment 2? | Yes. Attachment 5 - PID Data updated via Amendment 0003 | ||
| 13 | Section L, 10.4.5, Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data and Hazard Warning Labels, Page 15 | In reference to contract clause 52.223-3(d), Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data, and clause 252.223-7001(d), Hazard Warning Labels, submitting material safety data sheet and hazardous warning level information with proposals for the full list of active/ priced NSNs may exceed the computer memory limitations of the PIEE system, i.e., 10s of gigabytes for the full list of active NSNs. Can offerors instead submit material safety data sheets and hazardous warning labels for a sample set of 100 or fewer NSNs selected by DLA and for the remaining active NSNs submit following contract award if selected? | Section L has been updated to read, "10.4.5. | Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data and Hazard Warning Labels | |
| 10.4.5.1. | Offeror shall submit a sample of 25 SDSs/HWLs as required by clause 52.223-3, Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data and clause 252.223-7001, Hazard Warning Labels at time of proposal submission. | ||||
| 10.4.5.2. | This sample size will provide an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to submit complete and compliant SDS/HWL packages. | ||||
| 10.4.5.3. | During the transition period, the successful awardee will be required to submit SDS' for all active NSNs." | ||||
| 14 | RFP Section C, C09 Economic Price Adjustment - Department of Labor Price Index (June 2020) | Two solicitation clauses, C09 Economic Price Adjustment – Department of Labor Index, and L24 Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) – Established Prices, place a 10% upper limit on economic price adjustments on certain EPA factors for POLs, which combined represent 80% of the total weighting of all EPA factors for POL price adjustments: BLS Index PCU324191324191 and WPU06140197 (the two BLS indexes whose identifier exceeds six-digits) and ICIS Pricing’s price for Base Oils (Americas), Group II, Motiva G.C. 200/220. This 10% upper limit is not a reasonable or realistic because of the volatility of prices in the POL market in general. To allow an upper limit that is more reasonable and realistic, can the solicitation’s 10% upper limit for clause C09 and L24 be applied as an annual limit instead of as a limit over the life of the contract? | During the EPA evaluation, the contracting officer can request a waiver from the Head of the Contracting Agency if the value is going to exceed the 10%. We cannot request the waiver in advance. | ||
| 15 | RFP+20May24, Section F - Deliveries or Performance, Pages 13-14 | In reference to contract clause 52.247-60, Guaranteed Shipping Characteristics (JAN 2017), per Attachment _1_Basic_SOW, the Government specifies packaging and mode of transportation via VSM and the contractor pays all CONUS shipping costs. It would seem that this clause is not applicable and should be removed from the soliciation. | Clause will be removed. | ||
| 16 | RFP+20May24, Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, Pages 68-69 | In reference to contract clause 52.247-51, Evaluation of Export Offers - Alternate III (APR 1984), states that Offerors shall designate below at least one of the ports of loading listed in paragraph (d) below as their place of delivery. There are no ports identified in paragraph (d) of the clause. Notwithstanding, how is this clause applicable since VSM will specify all delivery addresses for orders shipped to overseas ports of discharge? | Clause will be removed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .