Solicitation_QandA.pdf

Interested Vendor Q&A

Please read carefully. Anticipated changes to the solicitation are mentioned in the last question.

Vendor Question: There appears to be a contradiction between documents about what the expected warranty is for this work. It is this Vendor’s opinion that all documents should read, “One year from date of contractor shipment of Condition A unit.” You might consider adding language to address an extension to the warranty period if the unit fails during original warranty period.

Government Response: The expected warranty period for this repair work is 12 months from acceptance of asset. A review of the solicitation documents did not yield any evidence of contradiction. The Government has decided not to include additional language for units that fail during the warranty period.

Vendor Question: There is a concern that reusable packages sent to the vendor may not be consistent with Special Packaging Instructions (SPI) attached to the contract. What is the process for submitting a notification that a received package is not incompliance with the SPI?

Government Response: It is our preferred method that an email with pictures of the non-compliant packaging be sent to the PCO for the requiring activity to verify. As stated in the solicitation, the contractor can submit a request for equitable adjustment if they have to make major adjustments to more than 5 reusable packages per year. At this moment, it is not anticipated that the contractor shall be required to use webSDR.

Vendor Question: It appears that there is a conflict of interest in the RQR. It states that OEM verification of the offeror’s repair and acceptance test procedures may also be required. It is supposed that the OEM is considered a qualified vendor for repair.

Government Response: To date, this has not applied to any of the accepted repair and/or test procedures. The engineer has been able to approve these proposed procedures without OEM support. This language is merely a disclaimer that the engineer reserves the right to have reach back to the OEM in situations where he or she needs clarification on how the proposed procedures would play out on this specific asset.

Vendor Question: The language requiring the DD 1348-1 creates redundant work between inspection and shipping, potentially requiring DCMA to inspect the asset twice. With WAWF and CAV AF speaking to each other, it is anticipated that the implementation of this language will cause issues between the two systems.

Government Response: It is not the intention of AFSC to cause redundant work to fulfill this language from either the contractor or DCMA. It merely wants to insure that CAV AF is being updated in accordance with CAV AF terms and conditions, to include a copy of the DD1348 being packaged with the asset. The Government is okay if DCMA has a system in place to make sure that the contractor includes a DD1348-1 in the package. Acceptable processes include random sampling, yearly inspection of shipping procedures, or the like.

Vendor Question: It is requested that TT&E CLIN be changed to a BER CLIN the solicitation. The

Two Step process significantly increases turn-around-time and costs. It may inadvertently result in batched processing of assets in order to facilitate inspection and acceptance of the

TT&E CLIN.

Government Response: Having received multiple requests for this same issue, the Government has decided to replace the TT&E CLIN with a BER CLIN and a No Fault Found (NFF) or Retests

Okay (RTOK) CLIN. The expectation is that all assets will be inducted under the repair CLIN and those not requiring repair will be moved to their corresponding CLIN through a contract modification. An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming.