3PEP RFP Questions and Responses - Rev 6 v2.pdf

3 PEP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

SUBMITTED AFTER RELEASE

OF THE FINAL RFPS

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

The following additional questions and answers are provided for informational purposes only and intended to assist in clarifying issues raised by potential offerors regarding the official solicitation. Please note, the official solicitation has set forth and established the actual terms and conditions of this acquisition. Any discrepancy between the official solicitation and these questions and answers must be resolved based upon the parameters of the official solicitation. It was the intent of the Government to resolve the majority, if not all, of the issues raised by these questions and answers within the context of the official solicitation; however, additional questions have been raised after its release.

1. Question: The relevancy criteria states: "Sourcing of at least [X] items or more that demonstrate the same, or similar, Federal Stock Classes, as identified in the 3PEP Statement of Work." Is the Offeror to determine relevancy based on the Federal Stock Classes listed in Appendix D (97 classes), Attachment B (95 classes), or both (158 classes when combined)?

Response: To meet the relevancy criteria, set forth in the 3PEP L&M, M-900, Section II.

Proposal Evaluation, sub-section C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, paragraph 4, Relevancy Definitions, an offerors items will demonstrate the same or similar Federal Stock Classes that are listed on Attachment B, or Appendix D, and/or a combination of the two lists.

2. Question: The relevancy criteria states each relevant effort shall demonstrate an:

"Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost: $[X]". If a cited contract contains items with unit costs ranging from $0.01 to $1,000,000 per unit with an average unit cost of $1,000, how should the Offeror depict "Estimated Per Unit Minimum Cost"?

Response: Any items that meet the Estimated per Unit Cost of $40, or more, will meet the criteria for Very Relevant. Items with Unit costs of $30 to $39 will meet the criteria for Relevant.

Items with Unit costs of $20 to $29 will meet the criteria for Somewhat Relevant, and any items that are less than $20 will not meet the criteria set forth in the 3PEP L&M, M-900, Section II.

Proposal Evaluation, sub-section C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, paragraph 4, Relevancy Definitions.

3. Question: In the SOW, section 5.12, MIL-STD-129P (4) is listed for marking, but in Appendix A: References, MIL-STD-129R is listed. Can you confirm which standard is correct?

Response: MIL-STD-129R is the most updated version which should be used. The SOW, para.

5.12 will be updated to include the correct standard, MIL-STD-129R.

4. Question: In the SOW, Appendix C: Scope states "Excludes items that require any inspection other than Certificate of Conformance" but the RFP includes FAR 52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies. Will the contractor be required to allow the Air Force to conduct inspections at either the Contractor's or subcontractor's warehouse?

Response: Contractors are required to maintain Certificates of Conformance as stipulated in the 3PEP Statement of Work, however, the Government reserves the right to inspect supplies IAW FAR 52.246-2. The inspection locations will be at the contractor’s facility, as required.

5. Question: In the SOW, Attachment A: Special Contract Requirements, section III.B states that the performance threshold for small business utilization is “30% of the vendors utilized.” This requirement is usually expressed as a percentage of subcontracted dollar value. Can you confirm the 30% refers to subcontracted dollar value and not vendors used, as those measures would not be equivalent?

Response: The metric refers to the vendors used, not the subcontracted dollar value.

6. Question: For small business utilization, if the contractor buys from a large distributor of the small manufacturer’s products, does that subcontract count toward small business?

Response: Since the items are not purchased directly from the small business, rather through the large distributer, then subcontract would not count towards the small business metric.

7. Question: This is a question concerning the subject solicitation. In Section M, 3.1, the evaluation factor for PPI discusses the submission of a series of orders placed by the government under an IDIQ type contract. This raises a couple of questions for us.

1. Should the PPI tool be used for submitting a series of orders as indicated in Sec M?

Response: Yes.

2. Does the limit of 4 contracts apply to this type of submission of a series of orders?

Response: M-900, C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor, 3.1 Series of Orders, the last sentence of the second paragraph states, “There is no limit of orders an offeror may submit”.

NOTE: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should be for the same continuous scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition.

8. Question: The RFP States page 3:

11 AFSC/PZAAC Letter, Attachment 4, is provided for your use to assist in obtaining prices from manufacturing vendors. However, Attachment Number 4 which was delivered with the other Attachments has to do with past performance.

Response: This item is a misprint/typo on the RFP and an addendum will remove that wording.

9. Question: If, even after best efforts, an Offeror cannot get a POC to fill out a PPQ, Are Offerors allowed to submit CPARs in lieu of the PPQ?

Response: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

10. Question: L-900 Proposal requirements, Page 5, D. Volume III, Price Proposal says the following:

a. The offeror shall submit pricing information in Volume III. The offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix) in the RFP.

And then in paragraph c.:

c. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

The questions for further clarification with the submittal of the Offerors Volume III, Price Proposal. When it says “including all required supporting documentation ":

1. Does the government want a separate Price Narrative (word document) beyond Attachment 7 Price Proposal Matrix detailing the methodologies used to build up to the proposed unit prices/prices?

Response: At the time of submitting the original proposal, the offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix). If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price during the evaluation process.

2. Does the government want supporting documentation information provided with original bid or during the evaluation process will they then go back to bidders asking for supporting documentation?

Response: At the time of submitting the original proposal, the offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment 7 (Price Proposal Matrix). If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price during the evaluation process.

3. Any items with a Technical Support Request (TSR) submission will not be included in the subset. Which Volume should the TSR pages for no bid’s be inserted?

Response: It is recommended that TSR pages be submitted in Volume III, Pricing.

11. Questions related to Extensions:

Question 1: Regarding FA851721R0002 Third Party Equipment Purchasing, can you please clarify if a deadline extension till March 17th, 2021 is acceptable?

Question 2: On behalf of Company X and their partner – X2 we are requesting a 60 day extension to the deadline on solicitation (FA851721R0001).

Team X and X2 are small business concerns, and we’re having a hardship responding to the solicitation by 3/2/2021. This is not a sufficient amount of time due to the complications caused by COVID-19. These complications are having a direct impact in preparing a submittal with reduced staff, especially in the logistics and supply areas, which are key in preparing pricing information. There are also 2d and 3rd order affects with vendors unable to respond in a timely manner to our requests for pricing because their sources are also behind and struggling.

We believe an additional 60 days to the published proposal due date, will allow all of the offerors, not just our team, sufficient time to respond. These are clearly unprecedented times and we appreciate your patience and understanding.

Question: 3: We are in communication with the suppliers listed for this solicitation. Due to the recent weather events throughout the western and southern United States, much of the supplier base is requesting extensions. Suppliers are informing us they are not able to prepare pricing or return to the office due to damage and/or inability to return to office. For these reasons we are requesting a two week extension to the pricing submission. This will allow suppliers time to return to their buildings and their regions infrastructure to return.

Response: The Team has decided to grant a two week extension for proposal submissions. Proposals are now due on March 16, 2021 instead of March 2, 2021.