Contractor_Questions_-_1_-_With_Govt_Responses__-_27_Mar_2017.pdf

FA8213-17-R-3002

Questions with Responses (1 - 16)

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.

All correspondence regarding RFP FA8213-17-R-3002 must be directed to the Contracting Officer, Maxine Sena, maxine.sena@us.af.mil.

1. Contractor Question:

Pertaining to the subject solicitation, please confirm if the USG will consider a proposal bid for Order Period 2 only? Or does the bidder have to provide bids for both Ordering Periods 1 & 2 to be considered responsive to the solicitation?

Government Response:

IAW AFFARS MP5316.504, Types of Contracts,(a)(2):

“Upon execution of the contract, an obligation shall be recorded based upon the issuance of a delivery or task order for the cost/price of the minimum quantity specified.”

Therefore, a delivery order must be awarded during Ordering Period 1 for the minimum quantity (8,400) as cited in FAR Clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations.

2. Contractor Question:

On Standard Form 1447, block 8 references NAICS Code 325920, however for this product, the NAICS code should actually be 325998 . In addition, block 10 specifies the supplies to be purchased as 'Explosives Manufacturing', however this is incorrect as the MJU-66/B is not and does not contain any explosive material. The correct reference would be 'IR Countermeasures'.

Government Response:

The Government’s normal practice is to utilize NAICS 325920 for Airmunition items.

The NAICS description is pre-established and cannot be changed by the RFP Contracting Officer. IAW the US Small Business Administration (SBA) website:

“To help small business owners assess their small business status, SBA has established a Table of Small Business Size Standards which is matched to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for industries.”

Therefore, the RFP NAICS will remain as 325920.

mailto:maxine.sena@us.af.mil

3. Contractor Question:

Clarification is requested for the referenced required delivery for the ordering periods by CLIN: for CLIN 0001AB, Ordering Period 1, Bid A - First Article Required, the required delivery is listed as 480 calendar days, however for CLIN 0002, Ordering Period 1, Bid B - First Article NOT Required, the required delivery is listed as 720 days. As it is indicated in the descriptions that Bid A and Bid B are intended to fall under Ordering Period 1, would you please confirm whether the delivery periods should also be the same?

In addition, deliveries are usually stated as "Days After First Article Approval" or "Days After Award": as there is a lack of continuity across the various stated CLINS identified in this Solicitation. Would you please confirm whether the required delivery is indicating when deliveries should start or when they should be completed by?

Government Response:

Delivery Schedules as cited on RFP and listed below are correct:

CLIN 0001AB – Delivery Schedule: “480 Calendar Days ARO Approval of First Article in Increments of 8,400 each”.

CLIN 0002 – Delivery Schedule: “720 Calendar Days ARO Written Notice of Award in Increments of 8,400 each”.

“Days After First Article Approval” applies only to CLIN 0001AB.

The awarded contract will be provided to the Awardee/s electronically as provided by FAR Clause 52.211-8 and Alternate III. Two separate documents (a ‘notice’ and then the ‘award’) will not be sent to the Awardee/s. Therefore, for this RFP, “Days ARO Written Notice of Award” and “Days After Award” will be considered the same event.

The CLIN delivery schedules are when the CLIN items should be delivered/completed.

FAR Clause 52.211-8 contains statement: “The Government will accept early deliveries at no additional cost.”

4. Contractor Question:

In accordance with OES3044, Rev A, Table 1, Note 5 on Page 10, all Inspection Lot Testing is to be conducted at NSWC Crane, with the exception of the End Cap Separation Test. As such, direction is needed for the submission of Lot Acceptance Test samples along with directions regarding quantity, whether the units will be shipped on a GBL, the delivery contact and address, acceptance and inspection criteria, what constitutes acceptance or rejection, retest costs, etc.

Government Response:

CDRLs E005 – LAT, and, CDRL C001 – First Article Inspection Report, have been revised/updated to address the question listed above and correspond with information already contained in the OES3044, Rev A.

The revised CDRLs will be incorporated via a RFP Amendment.

The LAT samples are FOB Destination IAW CDRL E005. Reference FAR clause 52.247-34 – Destination.

I

5. Contractor Question:

Please advise whether 'delivery' for this effort will be defined as 'submission of Lot Acceptance Test units to NSWC Crane' or 'at time shipment, FOB Origin'.

‘Delivery for this effort’ refers to the point at which the Government considers the Production Units that are required as deliverables for each of the CLINs 0001AD, 0002, and 0003 as delivered.

'At time of shipment' refers to when the units have been loaded onto a truck at contractor's facility, and title and responsibility for the units passes to the Government under FOB Origin terms (after receipt of USG LAT approval).

Government Response:

Delivery for production items (CLINs 0001AD, 0002, and 0003) will be FOB origin at contractor facility with DCMA inspection and acceptance via a WAWF/IRAPT Receiving Report.

Submission of Lot Acceptance Test does not constitute CLIN delivery.

6. Contractor Question:

Under FAR 52.209-4 on Pages 26 and 27 it states that a response regarding conditional approval, approval, or disapproval of the first article will be provided within 45 calendar days. However, CDRL C001, First Article Test Report, states that a response will be provided 30 calendar days after receipt. Please clarify which response time will be utilized for this effort.

Government Response:

CDRL C001 – F/A Inspection Report - has been revised/updated to address the question listed above.

The revised CDRL will be incorporated via a RFP Amendment.

FAR Clause 52.209-4 will be revised to reflect 105 calendar days.

7. Contractor Question:

CLIN 0001AB and FAR 52.209-6 on Page 26 specifies 120 units required for FAT, however 130 are required per OES3044, Rev A, with 10 units used as End Cap Separation Test samples at Contractor's facility and the balance of 120 being shipped to NSWC Crane for performance testing. As a unit price must be provided for the First Article Test Units, it is requested that the FAT sample size be updated to 130 units reflect the entire sample size in order to capture accurate costs of what would actually be built and tested.

Government Response:

CDRL C001 – F/A Inspection Report - has been revised/updated to address the question listed above.

8. Contractor Question:

Please advise whether Revision A to OES3044 also included any revision to the Classified Addendum for this specification. If so, will a revised copy be provided for reference?

Government Response:

There is no revision to the classified addendum.

9. Contractor Question:

For Volume IV - Offerors response to Request for Proposal (RFP), Section L 5.3.2 .2 requests submission of form DD254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification.

As this document was provided with the solicitation, please confirm whether you are requesting that blocks 6 through 8 of this document be completed with the Offeror's information.

In addition, the solicitation identified on the provided form DD254 does not match the number of this solicitation. Please advise if this is the correct document, or if an updated version will be issued.

Government Response:

The Offeror does not have to complete the DD Form 254 and submit with their proposal. Prior to award, the Government will complete the DD Form 254 based on the CAGE/s the Offeror identifies on their proposal. The completed DD Form 254 will be incorporated as an attachment on the awarded contract.

The DD Form 254 included in the RFP cites the Government Purchase Request number on block2.c.

At time of award, this block will be updated to reflect the resultant contract number.

10. Contractor Question:

For CDRL Item D006, it indicates that notification of failure is due within one (1) day and the preliminary report is due seven (7) days after the failure. As the MJU-66/B is tested at NSWC Crane, they would be responsible for providing notifications in the event of any failure. In addition, the standard time to submit a report following a failure is thirty (30) days, which is to allow time to conduct a failure investigation and root cause analysis. Please advise if the language in this CDRL will be updated to reflect the time allowance to conduct the required investigation in the event of a failure.

Government Response:

CDRL D006 - FACAR - has been revised/updated to address the question listed above.

11. Contractor Question:

CDRL Item E005 requires submission of the Lot Acceptance Test within thirty (30) calendar days of Lot Acceptance Testing. However, as the MJU-66/B is tested at NSWC Crane, no Lot Acceptance Test report is submitted after testing. A Workmanship Inspection report, which provides information on dimensional inspection, weights, seal integrity and End Cap Separation Test is provided at the time the Lot Acceptance Test Samples are submitted to NSWC Crane for testing.

Please advise if the language in the CDRL will be updated to account for Government testing.

Government Response:

CDRL E005 – LAT - has been revised/updated to address the question listed above.

12. Contractor Question:

The instructions provided for CDRLS C001, E005, and E007 indicate that submission is required in both Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) and Worldwide Ammunition-data Repository Program (WARP). As access to the information in these reports should be restricted to the parties which require the information for Acceptance approvals only, and not available to any Government user with access to WARP, we would request that the requirement be changed to submission in WAWF only.

Government Response:

CDRL C001 – F/A Inspection Report

CDRL E005 – LAT

CDRL E007 – Propellants and Explosives

Contractor’s propriety data information will only be submitted into WARP via CDRL A001 - ADC.

Wide Area Workflow will be used for the inspection/acceptance IAW CDRL.

CDRL (C001, E005, and E007) information regarding the use of WAWF will not be revised.

13. Contractor Question:

On drawing SA3976AS126 (GAGE, EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS ENVELOPE), the internal bore dimension of

0.985 (+.0000 -.0005) will not accommodate the maximum dimension noted on the case drawing (3864AS101 NOTE 5) of 0.985. It is recommended that the dimension on the gage drawing (SA3976AS126) be changed to 0.986 (+.0000 -.0005).

Government Response:

The Government has had fit issues with flares and decoys (including MJU-66) that have driven tighter gage requirements. Any deviations from drawing information should be submitted utilizing the appropriate form (RFV, ECP, NOR). The form can be submitted any time, to include before contract award.

14. Contractor Question:

Contractor requests clarification on NOTE 4 on drawing 3952AS200 (PACK, SHIPPING AND STORAGE (FOR30 DECOY, INRFARED, COUNTERMEASURE, MJU-66/B)). In the latest revision (D) the following text has been added to the note: “IN CASE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF THE SAME LOT CONSISTING OF MORE THAN ONE SHIPPING PACKAGE, A SINGLE AMMUNITION DATA CARD MAY BE UTILIZED AND ATTACHED TO THE SHIPPING DOCUMENTATION.” Does this change still require an ammunition data card to be added to every ammo box, or only with the packing slips for overall shipments?

Government Response:

Per the solicitation requirements, the ADC shall be generated in WARP. A copy of the ADC shall be included with the packing slips for the overall shipment for each lot (if more than one lot is shipped at one time, ADCs for each lot included in packing slips).

15. Contractor Question:

Drawings 3864AS102, 3864AS104, 3864AS108, 3864AS111, SA3911AS127, SA3976AS126, and SA3976AS127 do not list the MJU-66/B in the APPLICATION block.

Government Response:

For this MJU-66/B requirement, Contractors are to use Drawings 3864AS102, 3864AS104, 3864AS108, 3864AS111, SA3911AS127, SA3976AS126, and SA3976AS127 as provided.

The Government will update the drawing application block at a later date, as necessary.

16. Contractor Question:

Contractor requests copies of the Notice of Revisions (NOR) for the drawings listed in the Engineering Data List (EDL).

Government Response:

The technical data package provided via FedBizOpps is updated to incorporate all NORs.

Therefore, the requested NORs will not be incorporated as part of the RFP technical data package.