Questions_and_Answers_Industry_5_Apr_2019.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Small Munitions Trailers Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8532-18-R-0003
About this file
This document includes an industry questions and answers file related to a small munitions trailers solicitation, as well as details of the solicitation opportunity. The solicitation requests fixed price proposals to design, test, and produce two classifications of small munitions trailers (MHU-110V2 and MHU-141V2) over a seven year contract period including a basic two year contract and five one-year options. Offerors must propose on all contract line items which include the trailer designs and required data deliverables. The Air Force will utilize best value tradeoff source selection and make award to the proposal offering the best value considering technical acceptability, past performance, and price/cost factors. The solicitation is designated as a 100% small business set-aside with an anticipated award date between August and September 2019.
Questions and Responses from Industry dated 5 Apr 2019
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Small Munitions Trailers has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions and Answers 5 Apr 2019
1. Question: Are the spotlights required by clause 3.9.1 Lighting and the toolboxes required by clause 3.6.6 Storage Compartments to be included in the accessory list from clause 3.6.5 Accessory Equipment?
Should these items be priced into the trailer price CLINS or the accessory prices?
Answer: Storage compartments are an integral part of the trailer design IAW paragraph 3.6.6 of the PD; they are not an accessory. The spotlight, as defined in paragraph 3.9.1, is not an accessory defined in the legacy drawing packages. Therefore it has its own distinct paragraph in the PD to define its performance characteristics.
Schedule B of the RFP specifically lists each CLIN offerors are to propose to. These CLINs include the first article units, production trailers, and data. There is no separate CLIN for accessories. IAW Section L, Volume IV- Price 1, “the offeror will complete the RFP Attachment 7 ‘Small Munitions Pricing Model’ in addition to Schedule B in the RFP. Please review Schedule B and the Small Munitions Pricing Model to determine whether CLINs are priced or not-separately-priced.
2. Question: A number of drawings in both the trailer and accessory packages, e.g. 68D6923 Bolt, Knurled, 69B7100 Bracket, Brake Actuator, and 748438 Yoke, call out cadmium plating in their respective drawing note details. Since cadmium plating is not allowed under CE compliance regulations which are mandated in 3.3 Design and Construction and 3.3.4.2 Hazardous Material, what substitute plating method(s) should be used in lieu of cadmium based plating methods on these parts in order to meet CE compliance and the hazardous material requirements?
Answer: Please refer to PD15WRWNZEA05 Amendment 02, dated 7 February 2019, for plating. Also please see SOW para 3.3.2 Corrosion Control which addresses the contractor’s development of a corrosion prevention and control plan. The Government is not dictating an alternate plating material; it is the contractor’s responsibility to propose an alternative” plating material. REMINDER: The contractor will be supplying the Government with a complete data package with current finish specs IAW SOW para 3.6.4 Engineering data.
3. Question: Clause 3.2 Trailer Description of the Purchase Description is in contradiction to question 3 of the 04/01/19 Industry Questions and Answers. Clause 3.2 states, “The contractor may amend the legacy MHU-110M design and outfit the MHU-110V2 with […] up to two (2) wheels per axle” whereas the 04/01/19 Industry Questions and Answers state, “[contractors] may design the MHU-110V2 to have dual wheel/tire assemblies on each side of the rear axle(s).” For the purpose of bidding and pricing, which document takes precedence or will an official amendment be issued to resolve the issue?
Answer: The legacy MHU-110 design has dual wheel/tire axles on the rear, therefore dual wheel/tire axles are the default design. The PD and its amendments also allow the axles and/or wheels and tires to be reduced if the offeror so chooses.
4. Question: Vendor is requesting a missing drawing in the technical data package which is listed below: Drawing #200415593-01, Anchor Plate casting. Please advise when available through FBO.
Answer: The drawing has been uploaded and is available on FedBizOpps. The export controlled file is titled: Drawing_200415593_98752.
5. Question: For the MHU 141 drawing package, we are missing sheet 2 of drawing 748378.
Answer: Drawing 748378, sheet 2 will be posted to FEDBIZOPS. The export controlled file is titled: Drawing_748378
6. Question: For the MHU 141 drawing package, Assembly drawing 748500 item 79 is calling out part number 845719-30 but drawing 845719 only shows -20. Is there a newer revision that shows the -30 or is there an error on the drawing?
Answer: For item 79 in drawing 748500, the Government has P/N 8457914-30 UNIVERSAL MUNITIONS CHOCK ASSEMBLY. From the latest revision (E) of drawing 8457914, P/N 8457914-20 is the correct part number. Therefore, drawing 748500 REV M item 79, is incorrect and should reflect 8457914-20
7. Question: for the MHU 110 drawing package, we are missing sheet 3 of drawing 68E6899. The sheet 1 of the drawing shows 1 of 2 but the revision block shows 3 sheets and sheet 2 shows as sheet 2 of 3. We need sheet 3.
Answer: Drawing 68E6899, sheet 3 will be posted to FEDBIZOPS. The export controlled file is titled: Drawing_68E6899.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .