DRAFT_RFP_QAs_-_Interested_Parties_18_June_2013.docx

DRAFT RFPs FA8517-13-R-30037 & FA8517-13-R-30810 Responses to Questions from Interested Parties 19 June 2013

1. Question - Pricing a small pool of 100 items greatly reduces the overall risk to the offeror and may encourage companies to bid at, or even below, true cost for evaluation purposes under the assumption that there will be opportunities to make up the difference in future pricing actions. A large pool of items discourages this because the risk of negative financial exposure to the offeror increases with the number of items. Based on these assertions, we would request that the government consider increasing the evaluated pool of items.

Answer – Section M of each RFP has been revised to reflect a more representative quantity of items to be priced. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

2. Question - Per the RFP 252.211-7003

(c) Unique Item Identifier

(1) The contractor shall provide a unique item identifier for the following:

(i) All delivered items for which the Government’s unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more.

(ii) The following items for which the Government’s unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 There are no items identified in the RFP less than $5,000 that require UID. We want to confirm that a UID is only required for items $5K or higher and will be for the contract period.

Answer – Per the FAR, the UID is only required for items $5K and over.

3. Question - The RFP states, “Marking shall be in accordance with Standard Practice for Military Packaging and Mil-Std-129P(4), 19 Sep 07, Military Marking for Shipment and Storage. Need clarification that RFID is required.

Answer – The RFID is a requirement for the 3PL Follow-on contract.

4. Question – In the draft PWS, it states that delivery is measured by 100% on-time delivery by NSN at the delivery order level. In the Performance Incentive table on page 18 of the RFP it states that Measurement will be made for the average aggregate delivery of all items delivered within the period. Need to clarify that delivery measurement will be for the average aggregate delivery of all items.

Answer – The table in clause H-904 has been reworded to clarify that delivery will be measured by NSN at the order level. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

5. Question - Pricing Schedule: Pricing response times are in section H-901 and on page 15 of the RFP. Regardless of number of items requested on a pricing request, there is a minimum amount of time it takes a vendor to price an item. This varies based on whether the item has been priced previously or is a new item with drawings that requires a material estimate, assessment of manufacturing time and other factors. Recommend a minimum of two weeks be established for standard pricing requests regardless of number of items. Surge pricing can still be requested with shorter time periods if required to meet mission requirements.

Answer – Clause H-901 has been revised. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

6. Question - Tech Proposal: Recommend there be a technical proposal. While past performance can show a company has experience in supply chain management, it may not provide adequate information required to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of whether a third party logistics process is in place. The technical proposal could provide valuable assessment of quality processes and a complete understanding of the third party logistics concept.

Answer – Past performance reflects demonstrated technical ability. Technical competency will be evaluated via past performance criteria.

7. Question – Evaluation of Pricing: We understand that if a TSR will be submitted for all no bid items and those no bid items will not be evaluated. For the potential contractors who can price those items, it demonstrates their ability to perform to the contract. It shows they have the ability to be a 3PL provider because they have the sources to procure the items requested. As the solicitation is currently structured, a company may target to price only 10% of the items because they have special manufacturing capabilities/sources for those items. Ninety percent (90%) of the items identified for the pricing evaluation would not be considered if a company only priced 10% of the items. Pricing such a small amount does not ensure this company has the capability to support the 3PL contract. Recommend that pricing requirements be set for a minimum percent of items requested to ensure complete evaluation of pricing actions.

Answer – Section M of the RFP is revised to reflect 80%. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

8. Question – Schedule: 3PL providers are required to hold pricing for up to a year. With the current economy changes and associated material and labor costs increases, any significant gap in the pricing actions and award increases pricing risk and requires 3PL providers to include additional inflation factors to the final price.

Answer – 3PL Follow-on awardees will be required to hold prices for one year.

9. Question - Review of H-904 Determination of Performance Incentive. RFP - PG 18 of 64

(a) Responsiveness to pricing actions - Weight 25% - Weighted Score 1.25 - Should be .25?

Answer – The weighted score is correct as stated.

25% (weight) X 5 (score) = 1.25 weighted score

(b) It appears that there may be too much weight in one/two areas. This could cause a supplier to game the system and ignore less weighted items.

Answer – These areas are weighted in order of priority.

(c) Aggregate Days, Please review score. Grading total aggregate days will give only one number. The average number will either be on time or late.

Answer – The table in clause H-904 has been reworded to clarify that delivery will be measured by NSN at the order level. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

10. Question – WAWF Type – RFP - 11 of 64. Is the WAWF to be submitted as a service or supplies?

Answer – Service

11. Question – DCMA location for Shipping Information for OCONUS shipment.

RFP - 11 of 64. Will the cognizant DMCA be defined as the contractor’s DCMA or the location of the actual supplier?

Answer – The 3PL Provider’s DCMA will be the cognizant DCMA.

12. Question – TSR From – PWS - PG 13

box. This change will be incorporated into the formal RFPs.

13. Question – Electronic Data Exchange (EDE) – PG 3

(a) Item “O” - Please define. Is the Ordering Id Number/Tracking number as shipment tracking number such as a UPS tracking number?

Answer – “O” refers to be the Shipping/Package/Tracking Number.

(b) Item “N” – Please define. There are two numbers that are submitted on a WAWF, a Shipment Number and Invoice Number. In general the Shipment Number is the common number referred to when speaking with DFAS? This may confuse information such as item “J”.

Answer – “N” refers to the invoice Number

(c) Item “J” – Please define. See comments for Item “N” Answer – “J” refers to the shipment Number from WAWF

14. Question - If a unique number is to be applied to a specific order line item (requisition) it is our recommendation that this number be dictated by the USAF, this would not include WAWF shipment and invoice numbers as these are dictated by the supplier. Answer – The unique number to be applied to a specific order line item is the Government requisition number supplied at the time the order is placed.

15. Question - Recommend minimum quantities be established if ordered or allow pricing options to include quantity breaks that would provide the Air Force lower cost alternatives.

Answer – For Source Selection there will not be any quantity breaks. Clause H-901 has been revised to give the Government the option to request quantity breaks when appropriate.

16. Question - Is RFP FA8517-13-R-30810 now open to any Small Business meeting the Size Standard of 500 employees, and is not limited to HUBZone SB, SDVOSB, or WOSB?

Answer – RFP FA8517-13-R-30810 is a 100% Small Business Set Aside.

17. Question – What would be the due date to submit proposals?

Answer – The RFPs are anticipated to be released by 30 July 13.