Final_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_23Sep19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- T-38 Structural Component Re-Engineering
- Solicitation number
- FA8220-19-R-0002
View the file
Other files
Show all 42
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
Sheet1
| T-38 Structural Component Reverse Engineering - Final RFP Q&A - 9/23/2019 | |
| Questions | Govt. Response |
| Solicitation, page 8 of 38, Item No. 1005, First Article Test For Batch #1, Firm Fixed Price, Estimated Quantity, 35...Is this quantity correct based on Batch #1 having (4) parts? Should it be a lower quantity? Please clarify | The government is asking the contractor to provide quoting for both 3 and 5 first articles for each component set (there are 7 total component sets included in the contract). In batch #1 (2 component sets) this would be 6 or 10 first articles and for batch #2 (5 component sets) this would be 15 or 25 first articles so the total number of first articles for the entire contract is 21 or 35. |
| Due to the nature of pricing, as the majority is firm fixed priced, will the need to follow CDRL item A008 specifically IMPR DID DI-MGMT-81861A paragragh 1.4 be required and or other elements of EVM? |
| As the PWS paragraph 2.4.1 is focused on the IMS and the level of detail it seems extreme to require EVM as part of the monthly reporting. Not saying we cannot utilize EVM but just want to verify as this will influence level of effort for Program Management. | The Form 1423 for CDRL A008 lists paragraph 1.4 of the IPMR DID as applicable for this effort, when it should be not applicable (N/A). The IPMR is only for IMS elements and we do not want to require any EVMS elements due to the size and scope of this effort. As a result, CDRL A008 has been revised and is included in solicitation amendment #0001. |
| We respectfully request that the following Organizational Conflict of Interests Clauses be removed from the solicitation to avoid any potential restrictions on competing on future follow on contracts. |
5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010)(IAW AFFARS 5309.507-2, Policy Memo 10-C-15);
5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST--ALTERNATE VI (OCT 2010)(IAW AFFARS 5309.507-2(a)(7), Policy Memo 10-C-15);
5352.209-9001 POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010)(IAW AFFARS 5309.507-2(b), Policy Memo 10-C-15). The referenced clauses are being removed from the solicitaiton:
5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest;
5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest - Alternate VI; and 5352.209-9001 Potential Organizational Confllict of Interest.
Solicitation, Page 1, 8. NAICS Code 541330, Size Standard, $15.0M.
It seems possible that this solicitation could be under Exception A for NAICS 541330, Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons, which has a size standard of $38.5M. Will the Government consider changing the size standard for this solicitation?
| Yes, the size standard should be $38.5M. The size standard was incorrectly identified as $15.0M. This will be changed with a solicitation amendment. | |
| Is there an incumbent for this work? | No incumbent exists for this reverse engineering effort. |
| We would like to request the following TO's for the subject Solicitation: |
1T-38C-01; 1T-38C-3-1; 1T-38C-3-1-1; 1T-38C-4-27; and 1T-38C-4-51
| The following TO's have been identified as available: 1T-38C-1 sections; 1T-38C-3 sections; and 1T-38C-4-1 sections. If you would like to receive a copy of these documents, please submit a request to both of the POC's identified in this FBO announcement. | |
| Will the T-38 Loft Book be available for the awardee of this contracts, as to assist in the finalization of the overall loft surfacing? | No, the loft data has been determined not releasable. |
| Can you assist us in the definition of the "NOT SEPARATELY PRICED" CLIN with respect to the TDP's vs the DATA. DATA CLIN (0002, 1002, 2002), is a "NOT SEPARATELY PRICED" CLIN which calls out CDRLs A001-A020. As A005 is the CDRL for the TDP, we also note the that the TDP's (DRAFT and FINAL) is called out on CLIN 0003, 1003, 1004, and 2003. We are unclear if we are to include the A005 costs in the DATA CLIN #'s. | Each of the Data CLINs (0002, 1002, and 2002) is categorized as "Not Separately Priced" or NSP. The use of NSP is to identify that the offeror should not be proposing additional costs (or any costs at all) within these Data CLINs for the preparation/delivery of data deliverables. The actual costs for providing the data deliverables, should be applied within their appropriate CLIN. In the offeror's described situation, the costs for producing a TDP package, should be proposed within CLINs (0003, 1003, 1004, and 2003). |
| CLIN 1005 & 2004 are focused on FA Parts for Batch #1 and Batch #2. Both CLINs are following PWS 1.4.3.2 where only LH components are required for FA. For this RFP are you strictly interested in just the LH and single item unit prices? Likewise in the PWS under 1.4.5.2 you request cost estimate for completing contract with and without Production Tools but the CLIN structure doe not have an area for this and are you wanting the mirror or RH tooling estimate as well. | We are interested in the LH and single unit price. The RH components should be similar in cost to the LH. The LH tooling quote will also be sufficient. We should be able to use the price of the LH tooling to understand the cost to develop the RH tooling in the future. As this is not a production run, producing mirrored RH tooling would be outside of our scope. If components of the LH tooling can be used for both LH and RH assemblies, then that would be worth noting as this will improve our ability to evaluate the overall cost. The Government anticipates that any prospective offeror will provide all of the information that they can to better make a case as to why their design/proposal will be in the government’s best interest. |
| Just saw a note in the RFQ that says that this project is not yet funded. Is that still true? If so, what is the likelihood of getting funding. If you don't have funding, will you delay the due date? | The project is not funded in FY19 but we anticipate having funding in FY20 for the project and we expect to issue a contract by Feb 2020. |
| In regards to FedMall registration, we are being told that registration is limited to those with a DODAAC code. Will a DODAAC code be assigned to the awardee in order to procure the necessary parts for the reverse engineering effort? If one is available to be assigned, are you aware of the assignment procedure? | The awardee will be provided with a DODAAC/contract number upon contract award for the use of FedMall. DODAACs are typically assigned according to the government contractig office, our DODAAC is currently identified as FA8220. |
| PWS Paragraph 1.4.3.2 states, “The Contractor shall provide in the proposal, costs to produce three (3) or five (5) FA assemblies of each component (21 or 35 FA assemblies total).” |
The last Q&A posted with amendment 03 regarding CLIN 1005 states, “The government is asking the contractor to provide quoting for both 3 and 5 first articles for each component set (there are 7 total component sets included in the contract). In batch #1 (2 component sets) this would be 6 or 10 first articles and for batch #2 (5 component sets) this would be 15 or 25 first articles so the total number of first articles for the entire contract is 21 or 35.”
According to the SF1447 for FA8220-19-R-0002, CLIN 1005 is First Article for Batch #1. The quantity for the CLIN was 35 each. That quantity was later amended through Amendment 0001 to 10 each.
According to the SF1447 for FA8220-19-R-0002, CLIN 2004 is First Article for Batch #2. The quantity for the CLIN was 35 each. That quantity was later amended through Amendment 0001 to 25 each.
| It appears the Q&A and PWS provides offerors with a choice in pricing; however, the offeror is required to complete Section B pricing in the solicitation with set quantities for each CLIN. Offerors are also evaluated by total FFP proposed. Please clarify what quantities the offerors need to propose for each line item and provide an explanation of why the PWS and Q&A do not have set quantities. | The PWS has been revised to indicate that the government wants pricing for three (3) and five (5) FA assemblies of each component set. The government would like the offeror to provide two separate amounts for each CLIN, an amount based on 3 FA assemblies and also an amount based on 5 FA assemblies. For CLIN 1005, the quantity of 10 listed in the solicitation was the maximum (2 component sets x 5 FA assemblies = 10). For CLIN 2004, the quantity of 25 listed in the solicitation was the maximum (5 component sets x 5 FA assemblies = 25). These do not have set quantities, as the government will determine which number of FA assemblies (3 or 5) we desire based on affordability of the pricing that is proposed. | |
| How will the Government evaluate a comparable price when availability of the 11 components may vary depending on date of proposal submission and whether companies price in purchases of zero, one, two, three, or four units depending on how they assume which subparagraphs of PWS 1.4.2.1 applies? Depending on how many units are purchased through FedMall, the costs could be as high as $XM if 4 each were procured while 25% of that number if only one were procured and the rest were loaned through DLA. How would the Government evaluate these differences since this costs are being rolled up into a single CLIN? Would the Government consider making this item cost-reimbursable? | Based on the list of options provided in PWS paragraph 1.4.2.1; each offeror has the ability to make their own business decision as to how they plan on fulfilling the governments requirements, and also which scenario best results in a competitive price. The government's main consideration for evaluation purposes, is that we receive the items/services which are requested in the PWS at an overall reasonable price. The offeror should follow the steps which have been identified within the PWS for acquiring the parts. But the offeror's specific/final chosen combination of items acquired through FedMall, Surplus Vendors, RPPOB, etc., is of no preference to the government. The government would like to keep this item as Firm Fixed Price (FFP). | |
| We would like to determine if the provided Northrop Grumman drawings are going to be used as part of the final TDP (unaltered), or to be used only as reference to the final reverse engineering package? For example, we could provide revisions to the drawings to remove NG-proprietary processes and/or loft called out in the non-proprietary sub-components, we could reference the non-proprietary NG drawings in the drawings we submit, or we can use them to develop the TDP and leave them out of the package entirely? | The government requires a complete drawing package to be provided by this effort. We do not want the Northrop drawings being used unaltered or altered in the final package. |
The drawings are for reference during the reverse engineering effort only. It is expected that the contractor will provide complete drawings in their own format containing all of the required information. These drawings will list all of the required specs and no references to Northrop parts or specs.
File details come from the government source that posted it.