Attachment 4 Airfield Damage Repair (ADR) Material Kitting and Logistics Sources Sought Questions and Answers.docx

Airfield Damage Repair (ADR) Materials Kitting and Logistics Sources Sought Questions & Answers

Question 1: Will the Government accept a prime contractor that subcontracts primary ADR material manufacturing to QPL-qualified domestic suppliers? Given that ERDC’s Qualified Products List restricts the primary cementitious materials to specific manufacturers, does the Government consider a logistics integrator who subcontracts to QPL-qualified firms to be responsive?

Government Response: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question 2: Will the Government issue a Non-Manufacturer Waiver (NMW) under NAICS 327320, allowing a small business logistics integrator to qualify as prime without directly manufacturing the QPL restricted primary ADR materials?

Government Response: Government may ask for one. Final answers will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 3: Is this procurement expected to be set aside entirely for small businesses, partially set aside, or unrestricted? Will it be 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB, or total small business?

Government Response: This Sources Sought will help determine direction. No determination currently. Final answers will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 4: Does the Government anticipate a single-award or multiple-award IDIQ? Will delivery orders be competed among awardees or issued to a single contractor?

Government Response: This is for a single-award IDIQ, with all task (delivery) orders going to the Prime Contractor (awardee).

Question 5: Will the Government accept capability statement responses from teaming arrangements, or is data being collected on individual firms only?

Government Response: Government will accept all interests as part of market research but will only be dealing with the prime contractor.

Question 6: Will the Government provide estimated annual ordering quantities or planning ranges by kit type and delivery location category?

Government Response: The Government does not commit to specific annual ordering quantities or planning ranges by kit type or delivery location category. However, projected estimates based on historical requirements and anticipated agency needs will be integrated in the contract minimums at the time of award. All task and delivery orders placed under this IDIQ are subject to the availability of funding and the evolving operational requirements of the Government. No specific ordering quantities are guaranteed beyond the contract minimums established at the time of the IDIQ award.

Question 7: Was there a previous contract for ADR material kitting and delivery? If so, what was the incumbent contractor, contract number, and period of performance?

Government Response: Kipper Tool Company, FA805122D001, 2022-Current Question 8: What evaluation criteria does the Government anticipate for the RFP — LPTA, best value tradeoff, or another method?

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 9: The Appendices reference ERDC’s Qualified Products List for Rapid Set Concrete, Flowable Fill, Expedient Spall Repair, and FRP Grout. Will the Government provide the current complete QPL for each material category, including all approved products and their manufacturers, prior to the capability statement deadline?

Government Response: This is the responsibility of the vendor. As this is government owned and restricted sight, with the contracting office(r)/team approval we should be able to provide the most current QPL listing.

Question 10: Appendix V states there is currently only ONE approved Flowable Fill product (Buzzi Unicem Utility-Fill One Step 750). If Buzzi Unicem is unable to supply sufficient quantities during the contract period, what is the Government’s process for approving an alternative product under CDRL A001? What is the typical ERDC approval timeline for a new product to achieve QPL status?

Government Response: The Government maintains a process to address potential supply chain limitations. If Buzzi Unicem is unable to supply sufficient quantities of Utility-Fill One Step 750, the contractor may submit alternative product data under CDRL A001. AFCEC/CXXM will work internally to evaluate and approve the vendor-provided alternative. Please note that product availability has never been an issue during the execution of the current contract.

Question 11: Appendix R states there are currently two approved Rapid Set Concrete products, and the contractor must verify approval with AFCEC/CXXM per task order. Will AFCEC provide an updated QPL at the time each delivery order is issued, or is the contractor expected to independently verify QPL currency before each order?

Government Response: The contractor is expected to independently verify QPL currency prior to placing each order. However, because this involves government-owned and restricted site information, the Government will actively help and can supply the most current QPL listing upon request, subject to Contracting Officer approval. Contractors are encouraged to coordinate with AFCEC/CXXM during the task order planning phase to ensure compliance with the most up-to-date product approvals.

Question 12: Appendix GG notes that ERDC/AFCEC recommends Rapid Set Mortar Mix by CTS Cement for FRP Grout applications. Does this recommendation constitute a de facto specification, or may contractors propose any other QPL-listed spall repair product that meets the mortar particle size requirement?

Government Response: The recommendation does not constitute a strict de facto specification; however, the Government highly encourages contractors to utilize ERDC’s recommended material (Rapid Set Mortar Mix by CTS Cement). This specific product has undergone empirical FRP anchor testing conducted by ERDC, establishing proven performance and compatibility. While contractors may propose alternative QPL-listed spall repair products that meet the technical and particle size requirements, any proposed alternative must undergo a technical evaluation by AFCEC/CXXM to ensure it meets equivalent performance benchmarks established in previous testing.

Question 13: The Appendices reference ERDC QPL testing requirements across three categories: Laboratory Certification, Feasibility Study, and Full-Scale Traffic Tests. If a delivery order requires a material that is not currently on the QPL, what is the Government’s process and estimated timeline for new product qualification? Who bears the cost of qualification testing?

Government Response: The Government's intent is to utilize the Qualified Products List (QPL) for all material requirements under this contract. Every effort has been made to ensure that all operational materials required for tasks under this IDIQ are already evaluated and established on the QPL. Because the QPL will be utilized to the maximum extent possible, the Government does not anticipate procuring or requiring non-QPL materials. In the highly unlikely event that a non-listed material is deemed necessary, any qualification process, testing timeline, and cost-bearing responsibility would be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the Contracting Officer.

Question 14: Appendix Z names NiTech as a previous pelletized asphalt vendor. Is NiTech the current solesource supplier of pelletized asphalt meeting the Appendix Z specification, or are there other qualified commercial sources? Is there an existing Government procurement history with NiTech that new bidders should be aware of?

Government Response: At this time, NiTech is the only qualified commercial source meeting the technical specifications outlined in Appendix Z. Regarding procurement history, the Government does have active, ongoing orders for pelletized asphalt under the current Airfield Damage Repair (ADR) Materials IDIQ, with NiTech serving as the supplier to the prime contractor. Bidders should factor this established supply chain and market availability into their proposal planning.

Question 15: Appendix G requires custom-fabricated A-36 steel supersack racks to government AutoCAD drawings. Will the Government provide those drawings to all interested parties responding to this Sources Sought, or only to the eventual awardee? Can VSS request the drawings now to assess fabrication complexity?

Government Response: The drawings will be given to the IDIQ awardee.

Question 16: Appendix B requires the contractor to modify Type II Quadcons (5-ft ISO) by welding surface-mount rope rings and hardware to the container floor. Does this modification disqualify a container from CSC certification, and if so, how does the Government intend to address that certification conflict?

Government Response: The required floor modifications do not inherently disqualify the Quadcons from CSC certification. Historically, under both the current Airfield Damage Repair (ADR) Materials and ADR Equipment IDIQ contracts, modified containers have successfully maintained their CSC safety approval plates. The awardee is fully responsible for ensuring that all structural modifications—whether performed by the container manufacturer, the prime contractor, or a third-party vendor—are executed in accordance with CSC regulations. The final delivered containers must possess valid, active CSC certification at the time of delivery.

Question 17: The ISO container NSN specified in Appendix A (8150-01-513-6282) indicates Government-furnished property or Government-sourced containers. Will the Government procure ISO containers separately and provide them to the contractor, or is the contractor required to source and fund new ISO containers as part of each delivery order?

Government Response: The contractor is required to source and fund new ISO containers that meet all the required specifications and contracting requirements (ie. Buy American or Berry Amendments) as part of each delivery order. AFCEC/CXXM will provide USFU numbers.

Question 18: CDRL A002 requires a physical prototype of each ADR-M kit configuration for Government on-site inspection within 150 days. Given that there are six kit configurations, does the Government require all six prototypes simultaneously, or will it accept sequential prototype inspections starting with the highest priority kit types?

Government Response: The configurations are required for a “prototype/first article inspection” within 150 days of that specific configuration’s order. Configuration X is not required for inspection unless an order has been placed for that configuration. Inspections therefore are at the discretion of the government.

Question 19: Will prototype requirements apply to each kit configuration before production delivery orders?

Government Response: Each configuration shall be identical to the approved prototype.

Question 20: The Appendices specify precise shelf-life requirements: 18-month minimum (outdoor covered) and 36-month minimum (ISO container stored) for all cementitious materials. Will the Government specify minimum remaining shelf life at time of delivery order placement, and if so, what is that minimum threshold?

Government Response: The Government will not specify a minimum remaining shelf-life threshold at the exact time a delivery order is placed. The contractor is expected and required to deliver cementitious materials that fully meet the absolute shelf-life durations specified in the Appendices (18 months for outdoor covered storage and 36 months for ISO container storage) starting from the date of delivery. To achieve this, the contractor must make every effort to fulfill orders using newly manufactured materials to guarantee maximum shelf life upon arrival at the designated delivery location.

Question 21: CDRL A001 requires submission of alternative equipment parts within 45 days of delivery order award. Given that QPL-approved materials are restricted to ERDC-qualified products, what is the Government’s typical turnaround time for reviewing and approving an CDRL A001 alternative parts submission? Can alternatives be pre-approved during the base contract period before the first delivery order is issued?

Government Response: The government will give its best effort to approve non QPL equipment products in a timely manner. If the contractor or government is aware of a known equipment shortfall and the contractor submits an alternative to the contracting officer, AFCEC/CXXM will make it a priority to verify all details and make a technical determination on acceptance.

Question 22: CDRL A005 requires drawing packages within 30 days of contract award. Will the Government provide existing drawing packages from prior ADR contracts as a baseline, or does the contractor build from scratch? Appendix G notes that Government will provide AutoCAD drawings for supersack racks upon request — does this extend to full kit drawing packages?

Government Response: Yes. Following contract award, the Government will provide the current existing drawing packages to the awardee to serve as the baseline for the CDRL A005 submittal. This baseline support extends to the full kit drawing packages in the Government's possession, including the AutoCAD drawings noted in Appendix G. While the baseline drawings are provided to streamline the process, the contractor remains responsible for validating, updating, and completing the drawing packages to ensure they reflect their specific manufacturing methods and contract requirements within the 30-day post-award window.

Question 23: CDRL A006 requires NSNs where available. For line items that do not yet have NSNs assigned (e.g., newer commercial materials), will the Government assist in requesting new NSN assignments, or is the contractor solely responsible for NSN research and request submission?

Government Response: Because AFCEC is not a formal Program of Record (PoR), the Government cannot sponsor or submit requests for new National Stock Number (NSN) assignments. Consequently, the contractor is solely responsible for all NSN research, coordination, and request submissions required to fulfill CDRL A006. Bidders should utilize existing commercial and defense logistics databases to identify and document established NSNs where they exist.

Question 24: CDRL A009 requires DD Form 250 signed by the destination POC, submitted via WAWF, before payment is processed. For deliveries to austere or remote FOB locations where the POC may have limited communication capability, what is the Government’s process if a signed DD Form 250 cannot be obtained within a reasonable period after confirmed delivery?

Government Response: If the contractor is unable to have the POC provide a signed DD Form 250 in a reasonable amount of time, they may request help from AFCEC/CXXM in getting this accomplished. Payment is at the discretion of the contracting officer and may take the location and circumstances into consideration.

Question 25: CDRL A008 requires named QC Representatives at each project location. For a global contract with deliveries to multiple simultaneous locations, does this mean the contractor must designate a named QC representative for every active delivery destination, or only for the primary assembly/kitting facility?

Government Response: The requirement for a named Quality Control (QC) Representative under CDRL A008 applies only to the primary assembly/kitting facility where materials are consolidated, packaged, and prepared for shipment. The contractor is not required to station or designate individual, named QC Representatives at final, overseas, or simultaneous delivery destinations, provided that robust quality control documentation and inspections are completed and certified at the primary facility prior to shipping.

Question 26: CDRL A003 requires weekly status reports every Monday by noon Central Time for the duration of each delivery order. Does this reporting obligation apply during the period between delivery order award and the start of production activities, or only once production/shipping begins?

Government Response: The weekly status reporting obligation under CDRL A003 begins immediately upon base contract award and continues continuously throughout the life of the contract. The report is required every Monday at noon Central Time regardless of whether production or shipping activities have commenced. The contractor must submit the report continuously, updating it to reflect the status of all pending, newly received, ongoing, and completed delivery orders.

Question 27: The ISO container procurement process described in Appendix A references AF POC Staffon Allen at AFMC Wright-Patterson and AFCEC Container Manager Jeff Labeau. Will the Government coordinate ISO container acquisition through these POCs on the contractor’s behalf, or must the contractor engage these POCs directly to acquire containers on each delivery order?

Government Response: The contractor is required to source and fund new ISO containers that meet all the required specifications and contracting requirements (ie. Buy American or Berry Amendments) as part of each delivery order. AFCEC/CXXM (Mr. Jeff LaBeau) will provide USFU numbers. The contractor (awardee) will request the USFU #s based on each task (delivery) order; to include how many ISO containers, what size of the containers (20-ft Containers, Bi-Cons, Tri-Cons, QuadCon, etc), and how many of each size containers to what location(s), to Mr. LaBeau. Mr. LaBeau will then request the USFU #s from the AF Container Manager out of Wright-Patterson AFB. Once Mr. LeBeau gets the USFU #s, he will forward them to the contractor (awardee).

Question 28: Appendix A requires JCM (Joint Container Management) system upload of container inspection worksheets (DA Form 2404) upon container receipt. Does the contractor require a JCM system account/ access, and if so, how does the contractor obtain access? Is JCM training available or required?

Government Response: The contractor (awardee) will NOT be required to get access to the JCM system account or access, as this inherent government activity. Mr. LaBeau is the AFCEC container manager for ADR and assists the container managers at each delivery location to end-gate the delivered containers.

Question 29: For deliveries to FOB or MOB destinations accessible only by unpaved road, who is responsible for determining route accessibility and providing alternative delivery solutions if the primary delivery route is impassable? Does the Government provide route reconnaissance data, or is that entirely a contractor risk?

Government Response: All delivery coordination, route planning, and accessibility determinations are the sole responsibility of the contractor. The contractor is expected to independently research, plan, and execute transit to the designated delivery destination. To facilitate delivery, the contractor must coordinate closely with the designated delivery order (location) Point of Contact (POC) to obtain localized site updates and discuss logistical constraints prior to dispatching shipments.

Question 30: Will the Government provide SOFA documentation, customs clearance support, or host-nation entry facilitation for OCONUS deliveries, or is the contractor responsible for all customs, duties, and import fees at international destinations?

Government Response: All delivery coordination, customs, duties and import fees etc. are the contractor’s responsibility.

Question 31: The ATTLA (Air Transportability Test Loading Agency) requirement referenced in the Sources Sought questions is not specifically defined in the SOW. If delivery orders require air transport of kit materials, will AFCEC publish ATTLA certification requirements in the RFP, and will prior ATTLA certification be a prerequisite for award?

Government Response: As long as the contractor (awardee) does NOT change any of the currently kitted packing plans or containers, the ATTLA certification requirements are not an issues, as the government currently has approved ATTLA certifications for these containers/kits. The government only uses the ATTLA certifications for putting kitted containers on government aircraft for expedient delivery of War Reserve Materials (WRM) or natural disasters. The government will not request the contractor (awardee) to delivery any kitted containers by air. Past practice that previous contractors have sued (IDIQ or AFCAP) is delivery by ground (train or trucks) to / from ports or delivery locations and/or by water (port to port) on US Flagged vessels.

Question 32: Will the Government consider progress payments or performance-based payments under individual delivery orders to reduce contractor working capital risk on $5–20M FFP orders with 330-day AROs? If not, will the Government consider milestone-based payment tied to CDRL deliverables (e.g., payment at prototype inspection, payment at container loading)?

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 33: Given that multiple materials are sourced from single suppliers (Buzzi Unicem for Flowable Fill, Western Material for Fast Trac 246, NiTech for Pelletized Asphalt), will the Government include an economic price adjustment clause in the IDIQ to protect against sole-source price increases over the 5-year performance period?

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 34: What is the anticipated IDIQ ceiling value? The Sources Sought references potential $5–20M individual delivery orders, but does not state a total contract ceiling. Understanding the ceiling is critical for bonding and financing planning.

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 35: Will the Government accept a guaranteed minimum order value to protect contractor investment in standing up the supply chain, fabrication capability, and documentation infrastructure required within the first 150 days of contract award?

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.

Question 36: Will waivers be granted for non-berry compliant hand tools and berry compliant textiles when there are no known domestic sources of supply but may have TAA compliant options?

Government Response: There are waiver processes but no guarantees of waiver approvals Question 37: Will the government consider other moisture control methods/options instead of the desiccant tubes that require to be emptied.

Government Response: No.

Question 38: Will there be potential milestone payments as Pos are executed through the life of the contract?

Government Response: Final answer will be provided as part of the solicitation.