Contractors_Questions2_-_with_Govt_Responses.pdf

FA8213-15-R-3003

Questions with Responses (1 - 14)

Listed below are questions submitted by Potential Offerors and the applicable Government Response. This is only a partial list of questions submitted . The Government is researching the remainder of the questions and the responses will be posted to FedBizOpps as soon as they become available.

Questions which are similar in nature have been grouped together; therefore, the Government Response may cover multiple questions.

Potential Offerors have submitted requests for an extension to the Proposal due date. An extension to the Proposal Due Date will be formally accomplished via a Request for Proposal (RFP) Amendment.

All correspondence regarding this RFP FA8213-15-R-3003 must be directed only to the Contracting Officer, Maxine Sena, maxine.sena@us.af.mil.

1. Contractor Question:

We are considering whether or not we should submit a proposal in response to this solicitation and noticed a discrepancy between this RFP and the Draft RFP. In the Draft RFP, released in June 2014, Section M, para 1.1 states “The Government will select up to two contractors…” Whereas in this RFP, Section M, para 1.1 states “The Government will select one contractor…” Further, this RFP references FAR 52.216-27 (Single or Multiple Awards). Will the Government indicate how many technically acceptable contracts it intends to award?

2. Contractor Question:

Page 90, 52.216-1 states the government may elect to award a single delivery order contract, task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation. However, Section L states government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract with three ordering periods. Does the government intend to award a single FFP contract, or make multiple awards?

Government Response:

The Government intends to award only one Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

As stated on the draft RFP, the Government did consider awards to at least two contractors. The Performance Specification, Rev C, paragraph 4.1.2, addresses ‘production interruption for 180 days or more’.

Upon further review, the Government determined that the RATO Motor/Initiator usage demands were not sufficient to keep two contractors in production at the same time and without the risk of having the ‘production interruption’ attributed to the Government.

mailto:maxine.sena@us.af.mil

3. Contractor Question:

We seek clarification with regard to Ordering Periods (OP):

Our understanding from the RFP is that OP 1 will be awarded with the initial contract, with a quantity yet to be determined, and that any further awards of contract for delivery i.e. for OPs 2 and 3 will not be placed until after 30 Sept 2019. In our understanding that introduces significant uncertainty in our pricing for future OPs as there is no firm indication of which year the order will be placed or when deliveries will be required. Is the Government able to give an indication of when contracts for the second and third OPs are expected to be awarded and indicate whether there will be the opportunity to review the prices quoted. Will there be an opportunity for contractors to update their pricing?

4. Contractor Question:

Please clarify the individual Ordering Periods. Our interpretation is:

a. Ordering Period 1 – Delivery Order may be issued within 365 days after award of base contract.

b. Ordering Period 2 – Delivery Order may be issued within two years after Ordering Period

1 (366 – 1095 days after receipt of base contract award).

c. Ordering Period 3 – Delivery Order may be issued within two years after Ordering Period

2 (day 1096 – day 1826).

Is the above interpretation correct?

Government Response:

‘Ordering Period’ is the period where the Government may issue Delivery Order/s for individual requirements and encompasses several CLINs. The ‘Delivery Schedule’ is in accordance with each CLIN.

The following is to clarify the three RFP Ordering Periods:

Ordering Period 1 Date of Award through 365 Days ARO Award Ordering Period 2 Two Years – (following Ordering Period 1) 366 days – 1,095 days Ordering Period 3 Two Years – (following Ordering Period 2) 1,096 days – 1,826 days

IAW AFFARS MP5316.504, the Government must issue the first Delivery Order upon execution of the contract. Therefore, the Basic Contract and the first Delivery Order will be awarded simultaneously. The first Delivery Order will include the First Article requirements (CLINs 0001 through 0004AB), Production requirements (CLINs 0005 and 0006), and applicable data CLINs.

The example below utilizes a ‘notional’ award dates; therefore, Ordering Periods are also ‘notional’ :

Award Dates: Ordering Period:

Basic Contract Award 11 Sep 2015 Period 1 - 11 Sep 2015 through 11 Sep 2016 Period 2 - 12 Sep 2016 through 12 Sep 2018 Period 3 - 13 Sep 2018 through 13 Sep 2020

Delivery Order 0001 Award 11 Sep 2015 Award is within Ordering Period 1

Subsequent Delivery Orders will be primarily contingent upon Government inventory levels/usage and funding. However, the Government is cognizant of the Performance Specification, para 4.1.2, requirements of a Delta FAAT required with ‘break in production of 180 days or more’. The Delivery Order awards will be awarded so that a ‘break in production’ is not attributable to the Government.

5. Contractor Question:

In the RFP, Item no. 3 and 4 with associated sub items indicate Contractor FAT must be complete 548 days ARO. Then an additional 30 days after Contractor FAT acceptance the offeror must provide a test article to the government for a live flight test; inferring the First Article Acceptance occurs after the flight test is successfully accomplished. Finally in Item no. 5, the ordering period is defined as date of award through 365 days ARO award, while under required delivery it states deliveries are required beginning 180 days ARO approval of first article.

6. Contractor Question:

Please clarify the relationship and schedule timing of Contractor FAT, Government FAT, when First Article Acceptance actually occurs, and when the first production ordering period actually begins.

7. Contractor Question:

Section L page one states there are three ordering periods. As noted above it is unclear as to what the relationship is between the 548 days allotted to conduct contractor FAT, the time allotted for government FAT, FAA, and when the first production option will be placed. Please clarify.

Government Response:

The information below is to clarify the ‘Delivery Schedules’ for the First Article (FA) Tests, FA Report, and Production Items.

CLINs 0003AA and 0004AA FA Contractor Test 548 calendars days after receipt of contract

CLINs 0003AB and 0004AB FA Flight Test 30 calendar days after receipt of approval of First Article Contractor Test (CLINs 0003AA and 0004AA)

CLIN 0002 FA Test Report 30 calendar days after receipt of completion of FA Flight Test (CLINs 0003AB and 0004AB), plus 30 calendars days for Government approval.

CLINs 0005 and 0006 Production Items Delivery beginning 180 calendar days after receipt of Government approval

(CLIN 0002)

8. Contractor Question:

In the event that FAAT is waived, what is the required first delivery date?

Government Response:

In accordance with RFP ‘First Article Applicability and/or Conditions for Waiver’ (pages 88-89), all contractors must submit First Articles (CLIN 0003AA and 0003AB). First Article requirements will not be waived.

9. Contractor Question:

Section L, section 3.3 states that the page size shall be 8.5x11 inches, not including foldouts.

Are 11x17 page sizes acceptable for foldouts?

Government Response:

Foldout pages, 11 x 17 inches in size, are acceptable only for diagrams, schematics, graphs, charts, or large tables. Foldout pages are not acceptable for pages containing text only.

10. Contractor Question:

Section M, 2.2.5 states offers that fail to price any of the CLINs will result in an unacceptable price proposal. Section L, 4.2 states Each CLIN should cite a dollar amount or contain appropriate marking, such as Not Separately Priced (NSP)? Does each CLIN need to have a price, or is NSP acceptable?

Government Response:

All CLINs as listed on RFP, Section B, must have an appropriate notation as to the offeror’s proposal intention. The notation may include: a price, $00.00, not applicable, not separately priced, etc.

Proposals for which Section B CLINs are left ’blank’ will be determined as ‘unacceptable’.

If the offeror has concerns that a CLIN with notations such as ‘NSP’, ‘N/A’, or ‘$0.00’ may not accurately convey the offeror’s information/intention, a separate explanation may be provided.

11. Contractor Question:

The RFP, page 52, 52.209-1(b) states that a contractor be “qualified” in order to receive an award.

Please define qualified. Furthermore, does the government consider the current rocket motor supplied, built to Performance Specification SP201308358 Rev. -, to be qualified?

12. Contractor Question:

Page 52, 52.209-1(b) states for those supplies or services requiring qualification, whether the covered product or service is an end item, the product, manufacturer, or source must have demonstrated that it meets the standards prescribed for qualification before award of this contract. The product, manufacturer, or source must be qualified at the time of award whether or not the name of the product, manufacturer, or source is actually included on a qualified products list, qualified manufacturers list, or qualified bidders list.

The “Justification For Qualification Requirements” document, Section 6 states that the qualification testing be done at the offers’ expense.

SP201308358 Rev. C, Page 10, 4.2 Performance Tests states, the First Article Acceptance Test (FAAT) shall be qualified IAW Table 2 test matrix and the following test procedures.

The solicitation mandates that every offeror provide a price for First Article Price (items 0003 and 0004).

Is the government paying for Qualification/First Article?

Government Response:

FAR clause 52.209-1, Qualification Requirements, is in accordance with FAR Part 9, Contractor Qualification. The Justification for Qualification Requirements document provides the procedure for a contractor to become a qualified source.

The Government will not pay for Qualification Article production or testing expenses.

CLINs 0003 and 0004 lists the contractors’ CAGEs and Part Numbers which the Government has determined ‘qualified’. FAR clause 52.209-1 allows potential offerors to submit additional information regarding their specific item.

SP201308358, Rev C, paragraph 4.2 address qualification of the item - Rocket Motor.

CLINs 0003 and 0004 are the First Article requirements for the Rocket Motor and Initiator.

The Government will pay for First Article costs (CLINs 0003 and 0004); however, only after successful completion of First Article Testing.

13. Contractor Question:

Neither 52.232-13 “Notice of Progress Payments”, 52.232.15 “Progress Payments Not Included” or 52.232-28” Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments” are included in the solicitation. Will an offer be deemed nonresponsive if it is conditioned upon inclusion of a progress payment or performance based payment clause in the resulting contract?

Government Response:

An offeror’s proposal, that is contingent upon contract financing (progress payments or performance-based payments), will not be determined as ‘non-responsive’.

14. Contractor Question:

Is it the Air Force’s intent to supply ATK drawing number 60490E50015, cited on page 9 of the RFP, to all potential bidders?

Government Response:

RFP, page 9 cites ‘60490E50015’ as the Government Part Number – not as a drawing number. The drawings for ‘60490E50015’ will not be provided to other potential offerors.