QandA_1.pdf

1. Some observations 1 the document labeled spi (special packaging instruction) is a general to not an spi, given the weight and esd sensitivity of the power supply is quite possible that there is a real spi not a general one. This is a source of ambiguity.

Response: SPI – F000009XE5 is the SPI listed on the SPIRES website for this NSN. The SPIRES website also contains the specific codes for this NSN that are defined in the SPI. F000009XE5 is used along with the codes found in SPIRES under the NSN. The Packaging_SOW, attached in the solicitation, provides information and website links to assist in obtaining this data.

2. There are serious contradictions in the structure of the sf 14 There are two clins both asking for firm fixed prices iaw with simplified acquisition, one is for tte the other is for repair, furthermore you delegate to the aco definitization of the contract, Response: The contract type for this acquisition is FFP. DCMA is delegated the authorities listed in the solicitation in the event that they have to use them, but does not mean that they will. The final award will contain the appropriate language.

3. There is no receiving report riir deliverable for the tte but there is for the repair clin, further in the sf 14 there is a requirement for a breakdown of direct labor parts, etal.

Response: RIIR is listed as required.

4. All of this is contradictory, the purpose of the tte is for the contractor to examine the condition f units and issue a report telling the USG what is wrong with the units and what is necessary to bring it up to condition A, that requires a deliverable known as a receiving report for us an riir for the USG delivered iaw with the cdrls. Upon receipt of the report the pco/aco definitizes the contract in the amount requested in the riir or not.

In addition there is a standard inspection of the tte which doesn’t make sense since there is no deliverable under the current clin.

Response: No question to respond to.

5. I appreciate that this has never been competed for in the past and that it is 20 years old and cost information might be valuable for the reasonableness test but since it is not possible to determine any of those costs sight unseen it is not possible to perform this section of the sf 14.

Response: No question to respond to.

6. There are two ways to construct this requirement. 1 a firm fixed price to repair standard inspection for acceptance with no tte, this is requires the contractor to bid high since the contractor does not know what is wrong with the units and therefore what the cost of repair actually should be.

Or 2 the most reasonable for both the contractor and USG is a clin for tte, a riir as the deliverable from the tte effort, sent via the cdrl to either aco/pco for definitization into a firm fixed price for repair. This is fair since the usg and the contractor get to know the actual costs involved AFTER the contractor has evaluated and therefore justified the costs to repair.

Response: No question to respond to.