PTR_QandAs.pdf
PDF 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Primary Training Ranges (PTR) OM&S
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-11-R-0012
About this file
Questions received from Industry their respective answers from the presolicitation notice.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Primary Training Ranges OM&S Government Responses to Industry Questions
ID Reference Question/Comment Response
54 TE #5 on page 51 of 165
There is a Marsh Master Mower with no model or other identifying numbers listed at a value of $150,000, this term (Marsh Master Mower) is not used on either TE #4 or TE#6, is it listed in these Technical Exhibits under another name or what is its status? Please clarify. The Marsh Master is only listed in TE‐5
The Marsh Master Mower is fully functional, but will only be listed in TE‐5 due to how the equipment is accounted for in the Air Force supply system
55 TE #5 on page 51 of 165
There is a John Deere 120C excavator listed (valued @ $165,650.25) and on page 52 of 165 there is Bobcat Excavator listed (valued @ $163,995) but TE #6 only lists one excavator a model 120c (the John Deere) and TE #4 shows no vehicles for Dare County in a non‐replaceable status. Please clarify the status of this Bobcat Excavator The Bobcat is only listed in TE‐5.
The Bobcat is fully functional, but will only be listed in TE‐5 due to how the equipment is accounted for in the Air Force supply system
56 M‐3.3.6 How can you be so specific as to what qualifies for recent and relevancy for past performance and yet in the evaluation factors you state that a company without a record or has no verifiable, or sparse past performance will receive an unknown rating which will be deemed "acceptable". Please clarify how this factor is reasonable and not in fact unfair to companies with excellent range qualifications?
Per DOD Source Selection Procedures (dated Mar 4 2011) A.2.1.2. Past Performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).
Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”
57 Question #30
It appeared that the tool kits and sets listed in TE #5 were for also B&G ranges, GFE vehicles, structures and target maintenance since there tools kits and sets listed were also listed at non‐EC ranges. To properly price the Fixed‐Price CLIN, are the tool kits and sets listed in TE #5 sufficient to perform ALL maintenance required by the SOW on all GFE systems vehicles, targets, and equipment listed in TE #2, TE#4, TE#5 and TE#6, and not just on EC Systems. If not, then the bidders need to know what specific hand tools are being provided so a determination and pricing can be included to cover those additional tools needed if any. Right now there is insufficient data provided to price additional hand tools
Sufficient tools are available for routine maintenance. Specialty tools for maintenance of heavy equipment beyond the routine level are not available. Historically much of the maintenance of heavy equipment has been performed by local area mechanics, with the government reimbursing for parts.
Draft Solicitation FA4890‐11‐R‐0012 Page 1 of 1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .