14_Feb_2019__Industry_Questions_and_Responses.docx

Industry Questions/Answers 14 Feb 2019

1. Reference: Section L.II.A; L.II.A.2

Question: Section L.II.A lists 4 proposal volumes with different numbers of copies, implying that volumes are submitted in separate notebooks (one for each volume). However, in L.II.A.2, it states “Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified,” implying that all volumes go in one notebook. Will the Government clarify their submission requirements?

Answer: Each volume should be submitted in a separate binder. Section L will be updated to clarify this.

1. Reference: L.II.A.2

Question: Will the Government allow a reduced size font for tables and graphics?

Answer: No, the Government will not allow for reduced font size for tables and graphic. Print within the charts must meet the 12 point requirement. Section L states: “Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 and in Times New Roman. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” x 11,” excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Reference: L.II.A.1; L.II.A.3

Question: Section L.II.A.3 currently states that the page limitations include any cover sheet. Section L.II.A.1 requires offerors to mark each volume with the RFP number, the offerors name and address, and the Volume number. Since cover sheets count towards the page count, will the Government verify that cover sheets are not a requirement and that offerors can provide the RFP number, offerors name and address, and the volume number within their volume headers and footers?

Answer: If the cover sheet is on the outside (labeling) of the binder, it will not count as a page. Review each volume’s requirements in Section L Provision – Instructions to Offerors and submit your company’s documents based on the instructions for each section. Section L will be updated to clarify this.

1. Reference: L.II.D.2

Question: Since the Government is allowing offerors to use Past Performance references within the last 8 years, will the Government allow CPARS, in lieu of PPQs, as many of the Government POCs for contracts over 4-5 years old may no longer support the referenced contracts?

Answer: The Government is not sure they understand your question. The original points of contact do not have to be used for the past performance questionnaires. CPARS will be used as part of the pp assessment. The Government encourages offerors to try to get their POCs to submit questionnaires. Also, if there are particular CPARS that the offeror wants to ensure that the Government reviews, the offeror can always submit that as part of the past performance volume.

Section L.D.8 states, “The Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 6) will be one means used by the Government to obtain past performance information.” Use of the Past Performance Questionnaire is not required. However, “the offeror/joint venture member, (if applicable), must submit information for each past performance effort in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment 7, Past Performance Relevancy Table.”

5. What if there are zero Department of Defense contracts, within the past eight years, that meet both the ‘tasks’ and ‘features’ requirements to warrant a “very relevant” or “relevant” rating under the Past Performance evaluation?

Answer: Source selection will be made in a manner consistent with the DoD Source Selection Procedures which, in paragraph 3.1.3.3, states: "In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria."

6. Under Past Performance, can a contractor be given an overall ‘Substantial Confidence’ rating if it is not deemed “very relevant” or “relevant” under the relevancy tasks and features criteria?

Answer: See DoD Source Selection Procedures response above.

7. We are inquiring if this solicitation could be reclassified to a different NAICS 336419, which is Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing?

Answer: No, the Government has determined NAICS 333924 is the most appropriate NAICS for this acquisition.

8. Please advise current FA8532-18-R-0003 Small Munitions RFP anticipated release date.

Answer: The RFP will be released the week of 18 Feb 2019 through 22 Feb 2019.

9. Per the DRAFT SOW para. 3.8 Warranty – when does the 12 month bumper-to-bumper warranty on the trailers begin?

Answer: The warranty on the trailers will begin per acceptance by DCMA of production assets. The First Article assets will become production assets upon completion of refurbishment.

10. Will Specs TM-86-01 and GEIA-HB-0007 be provided along with the Solicitation?

Answer: The TM-86-01Q 27 Oct 2017 will be provided as a solicitation attachment once the solicitation is released.

The GEIA-HB-0007B is not an attachment to the Logistics Product Data CDRL. This material is subject to federal copyright protections and our office may not release this information to third parties. It is, therefore, the contractor’s responsibility to obtain their own publically available copy. GEIA-HB-0007A Logistics Product Data Handbook - (Copies of this document are available online at http://www.GEIA.org.)

11. Can we assume all of the most current items, content or directives which are necessary to respond to any Government RFP are currently contained in sections L & M, are contained in the “Draft Sections L&M, dated 21 Dec 2018”? If not, do we need to go back to each iteration of the “Draft sections L&M, dated 19 Nov 18 and 16 Nov 18” in an attempt to compare and contract respective documents to ascertain applicable changes?

Answer: Current documents uploaded are drafts only and final copies will be uploaded when RFP is released. Reference only final Sections L&M when submitting proposal.

12. We downloaded the TDP and the drawings are not in the package. We will need them in order to provide a proposal for the trailers. What is our next step?

Answer: The TDP has not been posted. TDP is Export Controlled and will be accessible along with other Export Controlled Documentation via FedBizOpps once the Government releases the official solicitation and it is posted to FedBizOpps. In order for a vendor to access any Export Controlled documents, the vendor must be registered in FBO, CCR, JCP, and be approved for export control document access.

13. When will the tech data be available for the munition trailers - NSN 1740-01-644-2083RN (PART NUMBER MHU-110V2) and NSN 1740-01-644-2085RN (PART NUMBER MHU-141V2)?

Answer: TDP is Export Controlled and will be accessible along with other Export Controlled Documentation via FedBizOpps once the Government releases the official solicitation and it is posted to FedBizOpps. In order for a vendor to access any Export Controlled documents, the vendor must be registered in FBO, CCR, JCP, and be approved for export control document access.

14. Provide a link for the public to the National Weapons Center Handbook 63-126. The link we provided: https://wwwmil.nwc.kirtland.af.mil/nwc/e-Guide/WebHelp/index.htm. Is for USAF only. Is there one available the general public can access?

Answer: A public version has been uploaded to FedBizOpps under the file title: AFHDBK 63-126

15. As called out in the PD, the referenced spec, MIL-DTL-81706B specifies a Hexavalent Chromium immersion for the aluminum pre-treatment. To our knowledge, this is not a process that is available to most companies.

Answer: PD15WRWNZEA05 has been modified to allow the use of non-hexavalent chrome pretreatment In Accordance With MIL-DTL-81706, Type II, applied In Accordance With MIL-PRF-5541 Type II for locals that have restricted the use of hexavalent chrome. This affords contractors flexibility to use MIL-DTL-81706, Type I (containing hexavalent chrome) or MIL-DTL-81706, Type II (without hexavalent chrome) depending upon regulatory authority exercised by their locality.

16. For the same process, there are two referenced sections of the draft PD. Section 3.3.1.1.2 calls out a Hexavalent Chromium immersion pre-treatment, and Section 3.3.4.2 says do not use Hexavalent Chromium immersion pre-treatment.

Answer: PD15WRWNZEA05 has been modified to clarify that no hexavalent chromium or cadmium shall be used in construction of the trailers except as specifically allowed in PD15WRWNZEA05.