QA_Version_I.pdf

MHU-196/204 RFP FA8532-17-R-0006

Questions & Answers

1. QUESTION: How is this notice related to the Sources Sought Notice issued on July 18, 2016 for Munitions Handling Unit 196/204 (MHU-196) and (MHU-204) engineering services, testing, depot repair, and prototype support issued under FA8519- MHU196and204 and Munitions Handling Trailer to replace the MHU-196 and MHU-204 issued under RM17-Universal-Munitions-Handling-Trailer (MHU-196_204) last Jan 26, 2017?

a. ANSWER: The July 18, 2016 posting is for sustainment of the 196/204 and the Jan 26, 2017 is for new design.

2. QUESTION: It appears that this pre-solicitation for the MHU-196/204 is related to a previous Sources Sought for the MHU-196/204 [Sol. #: RM17-Universal-Munitions- Handling-Trailer (MHU-196_204)]. The Sources Sought provided “locked” specifications files. I have questions on this pre-solicitation based on the content in the “locked” specification files which we had credentials to access. Is there any reason why we should not send you an email citing or asking questions related to the contents of Specification No. R60244-00018, Part I of II or Specification No. R60544-40001?

a. ANSWER: The July 18, 2016 posting is for sustainment of the 196/204 and the Jan 26, 2017 is for new design. Part 1 and 2 of the specification relates to basic performance parameters. As task come about drawings will be supplied that will have adequate information to address issues.

3. QUESTION: We are a small business engineering firm with direct past performance on specialty military transport trailers, some specifically with nuclear ordnance. We noticed this opportunity when posted as pre-solicitation. As we are a small business, do you want us to fill out and submit the questionnaire from the previous sources sought for your records?

a. ANSWER: No, just provide a complete proposal

Updated May 23 2017

4. QUESTION: Sections L and M differ, under Sub-Factor One, Technical Approach, in that Section L (bullet 6) requires examples of nuclear certified equipment and Section M allows for similar examples, such as related to ASIP, MECSIP, etc. Is the nuclear certified equipment a qualifier to the statement at the top of this section requesting two unique processes/examples for each element, and is Section L or M correct?

a. ANSWER: Both sections should allow ASIP, MECSIP, etc., in addition to nuclear certification experience/process examples…. The sections should match in that regard. And any of those areas should be sufficient to cover the criteria.

5. QUESTION: For task 1, is there an existing (government furnished) Finite Element model to be used for the structural analysis, or is a new model required?

a. ANSWER: We do have a limited structural model. It is believed to be incomplete, with errors. It is in IGES format. It would likely require vetting (not sure as to what level) prior to being used by the contractor, if used… I can provide the files if required.

6. QUESTION: In Section M, Subfactor 1&2, the PWS outline provides PWS paragraphs with exemptions. Is it the Government’s intention, that these PWS paragraphs be excluded from the Offeror’s Technical approach; therefore, they would not be part of the Technical evaluation?

a. ANSWER: The contractor is not under obligation to respond to exempted paragraphs.

7. QUESTION: For volume II there is a 25 page limitation, however in subfactor 1 paragraph 6, examples of technical reports are requested. How are these reports to be submitted (e.g. separate appendices) and also do those reports count towards the 25 page limit.

a. ANSWER: An entire technical report, or sections of the technical report, can be provided as an appendix. The Contractor can reference information/data/etc. from within the proposal to the Appendix, as appropriate.

8. QUESTION: The Q&A posted for the solicitation states that " The July 18, 2016 posting is for sustainment of the 196/204 and the Jan 26, 2017 is for new design." The solicitation posted 5 May 2017 appears to be an IDIQ to support the existing MHU- 196/204 rather than a new design. Can you confirm?

a. ANSWER: The solicitation posted 5 May 2017 is a three year IDIQ contract for sustainment of the existing MHU 196/204 units. Not a new design.

9. QUESTION: Section L, Paragraph 2. d. Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal, subparagraph ii states " Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume and Attachments 10, the sample task order bid schedule." It's unclear what data and what format beyond Attachment 10 is to be included for this Volume. Can the Government clarify?

a. ANSWER: All pricing information should be contained in Volume III Cost/Price Proposal. Attachment 10 is a part of Volume III. Any pricing information contained in any other Volume will be deemed unacceptable.

10. QUESTION: How many fielded MHU-196 and 204 munitions handlers does the USAF possess?

a. ANSWER: Approximately 130 total units; majority being the MHU-196.

11. QUESTION: Who is the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) and designer of the

MHU-196/204?

a. ANSWER: AAI Corporation (P.O. Box 126 Hunt Valley, MD 21030-0126 is on original documentation).

12. QUESTION: Would it be possible to make the interested vendor list publicly viewable on FBO.gov?

a. ANSWER: No.