QA from Presolicitation Conference .docx

Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions and Answers 16 September 2021

Q1: The 72 kW GPU BEQs in the draft RFP appear to be split 50/50 instead of as previously described (e.g. 25% to Group A, 25% to Group B, 50% remaining). (Unresolved question from large audience conference session)

A: The Government had a misunderstanding of the issue during the large audience session of the conference regarding this question. The top level CLIN for each of the 72 kW GPU CLINs within the ordering years is the overall total estimated annual quantity that the Government anticipates ordering each year. This was what the Government was referring to as the “total BEQ” for the CLINs. When reviewing the Schedule B, as well as information identified within Section M paragraph M.II.C.4.3 and 4.4, it does appear to conflict with the Government’s intention for how the Schedule should be interpreted.

As an example: Within Ordering Year I, the two CLINs in question are 1002 and 1007. Both have a BEQ of 266; the Government’s estimated quantity for the entire year is 266—it is not 266 + 266 = 532. A note has been added to the preamble in Schedule B to further clarify this (see page 5). The quantities identified in Section M paragraphs M.II.C.4.3 and 4.4 have been reviewed and updated to reflect the correct total BEQ. The information should be viewed as the total estimated quantity of 72 kW GPUs to be procured between the two contracts; it is not split between the two contracts.

Q2: Will 3D PDFs be allowable as a part of the technical proposal submission?

A: Due to legalities of reviewing and interpreting source selection information, at this time, more protection is provided to both Government and potential offerors if models are extracted and submitted as illustrations rather than interactive PDFs for the technical proposal.

Q3: Suggest revising the contract minimum from the post award conference to the first articles.

A: The Government has taken this into advisement, and the originally identified contract minimum of $3,000.00 for the post award conference will remain as the contract minimum. A recent legal interpretation of contract minimum requirements within this contracting office’s legal team has stated that the contract minimum needs to be identified as the same across all awardees. Using each individual awardee’s proposed prices for the first articles and associated data would not be meeting this recently received legal guidance.

Q4: Any trade-space to allow for thresholds and objectives? The level of descriptiveness and the simultaneous criteria required to be met within specific dimensions and maximum weight make it extremely difficult if not impossible to meet.

A: Each Purchase Description has internal trade space able to be managed by a potential offeror based on their selected design approach; however, there are no objectives associated with any of the Purchase Descriptions.

Q5: Government cost model—it wasn’t included as an attachment to the email sent with the invites; can we obtain a copy?

A: The Excel pricing spreadsheet has been posted to beta.SAM along with the rest of the RFP attachments called out in Section L. Specifically, the pricing spreadsheet is RFP Attachment 10.

Q6: Will there be any future requirement to go to 50Hz?

A: The Government is not aware of any future requirement to go to 50Hz at this time.

Q7: Is the B-52 information in the ULB PD in compliance with MIL-STD-704?

A: Aircraft are continually subjected to modifications and upgrades; refer to PD21WRWNZEA008 for 72 kW GPU electrical power requirements. Electrical upgrades to aircraft are mandated to comply with the latest version of MIL-STD-704 in effect at time of upgrade; there may be many different electrical systems complying with various versions of MIL-STD-704 installed on any given aircraft at any given time. Please refer to paragraph 3.2 of PD21WRWNZEA009 for electrical power inputs for the 144kW ULB.

Q8: When does the Government anticipate releasing the RFP?

A: At this time, the Government anticipates releasing the RFP in late October 2021. Please note that the team is working diligently to move the release date to the left; however, late October is a valid date with the information currently available to the team.

Q9: Suggest including a VCRM requirement to help traceability for testing.

A: The Government has taken this into advisement, and the team believes the information that would be found in a VCRM is already identified within the data submittal requirements (test plan, test procedure, test report, etc.). Should an awardee choose to develop this and provide as a part of their overall data submittal, the Government will accept it; however, it will not be rolled into a mandatory submittal element.

Q10: There is a specified location for certain receptacles and it is open for others. Does the Government have a preference on where the unspecified receptacles are located?

A: For those areas of the Purchase Descriptions that are silent on required locations, there is no preference.

Q11: What is the Government’s preference on removing the LRUs? Vertically? Out the side of the unit? Some of the boxes may contain transformers and will be extremely heavy. We’re considering doing a lot of the LRU design without the transformers located in the “box(s)” to aid in removing/installing but would like to discuss how the Government envisions the maintenance aspect of this task. Some design work has already been completed but can be re-worked with added clarity. Again, some of this design work has already been looked at, we’re just trying to clarify so that the user will receive what will best suit their needs.

A: For those areas of the Purchase Descriptions that are silent on LRU construction, access, and maintenance requirements, there is no preference. Note: there is no numerical limit to the number of LRUs defined in any of the Purchase Descriptions; however, requirements for reliability and maintainability can be found in each Purchase Description.

Q12: Due to the fuel tank likely blocking much airflow on the bottom of the unit, is it possible to have more airflow louvers on the upper portion of the doors and panels differently than shown in the suggested model design? We fear that the large airflow needed for the engine cooling system AND the electrical components and transformers will need focused airflow design with more openness than shown in the model.

A: The conceptual illustration of the 144 kW GPU discussed by the Government during the Pre-Solicitation conference was strictly an example of one of many possible ways to visually interpret highlighted portions of the GPU Purchase Descriptions solely for fostering effective discussion between the Government and potential offerors. There is no mandate for a potential offeror to submit a proposed GPU design appearing exactly like the conceptual illustration.

Q13: We understand from both generator PDs that cable trays are required for both the small and large gen sets. Having said that, we did see that cable hooks were shown on the 144kW unit model. The 72kw PD explicitly called for no hooks. But the conversation stated that the 72 can be just a smaller unit of this 144 model, so, can hooks be used as long as they do not extend beyond the envelope of the entire unit dimension or if they are recessed. REASON: this would allow mobility with cables on the unit in the field.

A: The conceptual illustration of the 144 kW GPU discussed by the Government during the Pre-Solicitation conference was strictly an example of one of many possible ways to visually interpret highlighted portions of the GPU Purchase Descriptions solely for fostering effective discussion between the Government and potential offerors. There is no mandate for a potential offeror to submit a proposed GPU design appearing exactly like the conceptual illustration. During the conference, it was stated that the illustration could generally be scaled down and applied to the smaller 72 kW GPU, in reference to the sides, panel doors, etc.—please note however, any 72 kW GPU must meet the requirements as specified in PD21WRWNZEA008—some of which differ from the 144 kW GPU requirements of PD21WRWNZEA007. In short, cable storage hooks are currently prohibited from the 72 kW GPU design; however, the Government will continue to confer with our customer base and provide any updates if they become available.

Q14: Load Bank: grounding cable. We intend to provide a removable grounding cable that can be installed permanently if desired. Can this be one part where a tool can be used to hook up that grounding cable to ensure better continuity?

A: Please refer to paragraph 3.7.4 of PD21WRWNZEA009 for grounding requirements and paragraph 3.12.15 of PD21WRWNZEA009 for tools requirements.

Q15: How is the ULB being used in the future that is different from what is in the past? There was a specific comment during the briefing that we’re seeking clarity on. We understand that generally the loadbanks are sat at the AGE shop for the majority of the time, moved for shipment, for frequency converter/MG testing and for B-52 on-aircraft generator testing but are there other expected uses that we need to consider from a design standpoint?

A: The major changes from somewhat of a “traditional” loadbank concept of operations of semi-stationary behind an Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) maintenance facility are: the ability to be more mobile to support a wider of variety of semi-stationary flightline equipment, the ability to be more mobile to support B-52 aircraft on the flightline, and the newly forming Agile Combat Employment (ACE) operational concepts.

Q16: Will 3D drawings similar to the Government concepts be acceptable to deliver during the technical gate?

A: Due to legalities of reviewing and interpreting source selection information, at this time, more protection is provided to both Government and potential offerors if models are extracted and submitted as illustrations rather than interactive PDFs for the technical proposal.

Q17: When does the Government anticipate the “clock starting” with regards to warranty? This is more for our awareness than anything but based on previous experience from the field, many times by the time equipment shows up at the base level the equipment is already out of or nearly out of warranty. Looking for clarity to better support the field.

A: The warranty “clock” will start at the time of DCMA acceptance. The two year/2,000 hours (whichever occurs first) warranty time frame determination is based on both industry feedback and the understanding that units take time to get shipped to their final locations.

Q18: Gate 2 "Technical" is presented as a binary "Acceptable/Not Acceptable" assessment with no benefit to bidders presenting enhanced or technically superior solutions. Is there any advantage to providing a superior technical response with information exceeding the government requirements or will all bidders who pass through Gate 2 receive the same rating regardless of standard of technical submission?

A: With the “Acceptable/Unacceptable” evaluation methodology, there is no evaluation credit or any advantage for offerors to propose above the minimum requirements. As a reminder, in order to move beyond Gate 2, an offeror must be determined “Acceptable” for each of the four technical subfactors.

Q19: What are some of the key items that are important to the USAF with regards to confidence rating vs relevancy? For example contract size, quantity, duration, deliverables complexity etc.

A: The information highlighted in this question are all elements that will be considered as a part of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort during the relevancy evaluation. There aren’t any elements more important than the others as it relates to the relevancy definitions—the elements identified are those elements that the Government considers to be critical requirements.

As it relates to the overall performance confidence assessment rating, the performance record of an offeror (to include the information provided for any critical subcontractors) will be rolled up into an overall rating. This assessment will take into consideration the recency of the efforts submitted, the relevancy of the efforts submitted, and the quality of performance information obtained by the Government. If an effort is missing any of these three aspects, that effort will not be rolled up into the over performance confidence assessment. It is imperative to note that the rating is not only dependent on the relevancy ratings. An offeror receiving relevancy ratings of Very Relevant or Relevant may not receive a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating if the quality of performance information indicates continual negative performance trends, uncorrected product defects, etc. It is also possible to obtain a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating with efforts determined as “Somewhat Relevant”. It is all dependent on the offeror’s performance record available for evaluation—again, the performance record will include the three aspects of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Q20: Government stated that not all units need to undergo operational testing. Please clarity further.

A: Please refer to SOW section 3.6 in its entirety and the top-level pictorial schedule presented during the Pre-Solicitation Conference. All first article units are required to undergo testing; however, depending upon the potential contractor’s test schedule management strategy and overall test plan, the potential contractor may choose to not subject each and every first article unit to operational testing with USAF aircraft and USAF personnel.

Q21: Please further clarify how the Government anticipates paying a % of non-recurring expenses. Based on the discussion today it seems to be related to the CLINs and timing of those invoices. But it was stated months ago that the intent was to reduce the financial burden on Industry. At what stages should Industry anticipate percentage payments being made through this process?

A: The Government has made the determination to allow progress payments at the customary rate for these two contract awards. Both the first article unit and the associated non-recurring costs SubCLINs will be eligible for the progress payments at the customary rate. This will allow the awardees to recoup a percentage of the costs incurred on a monthly basis without requiring the awardee to tie up potentially millions of dollars over the course of the basic period of performance. With the progress payments, the awardees will not be required to meet pre-defined milestones in order to submit interim invoices for payment.

Q22: As previously mentioned, we have been in communication with various customers over the last couple of months working to determine which projects we intend to submit for past performance review. When are we cleared to send attach 7 to our customers to have discussions and for their review in anticipation of Government calls/emails? We understand that these are marked CUI, that’s why we’re trying to confirm before sending.

A: The draft questionnaires can be sent to customers now, with the caveat that the final versions will be sent upon final RFP issuance.

Q23: Please note that we are still experiencing IT issues as it relates to functionality of the PPI tool. This may be an internal obstacle we need to overcome; however, we wanted to point this out to provide feedback to the Government that usability of this program may not be so intuitive in adding the pertinent information for review as it is not readily available to most members of our team.

A: From further discussions, it appears as though the IT issues have been resolved. Please note that the Government team highly encourages interested vendors request a copy of the PPI Tool now to become familiar with the database and the information input format. The PPI Tool is a Microsoft Access database, and may require a license for utilization.

Q24: In the case that a small business were to be awarded the Group A contract, would the Government reserve the right to award Group B to a large business? Point being, on a contract of this value the small business objectives will have been met if Group A goes to a small business and having a large business as the Group B awardee would give greater flexibility to deliver more products in a shorter duration should the need and funding be available for larger quantity purchases within an option year.

A: The Government has revisited this strategy determination with all necessary Government stakeholders, and the determination has been made to keep the Group B competition as a small business set aside. The requirements of FAR 19.502-4 are met by the Group B portion, and will remain set aside for small businesses. Per FAR 19.502-5, the potential for a small business to win Group A does not provide sufficient reasoning for not setting aside the Group B portion of the effort.

Q25: Please further clarify other Government resources that may be utilized to determine past performance. CPARS and DCMA reports were mentioned but we’d like further explanation of other tools at the Government’s disposal for evaluation. Point being, we’d like to make sure that all of our submissions will be “gradable”

A: Additional databases/source of information available to the Government include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). These databases compile information on on-time deliveries/late deliveries, terminations for both convenience and cause/default, etc., all tied to specific contract numbers. The Government plans to utilize all available resources during the course of the past performance evaluation.

Q26: Are any type of tire other than pneumatic, i.e. solid rubber, foam filled, etc. allowable for use?

A: At this time the only allowable tires are the radial tires specified in each Purchase Description. The Government will continue to confer with our customer base and provide any updates if they become available.

Q27: Industry suggests that the requirement to renew all of the validation carts to ‘like new’ be reviewed, especially for carts that will undergo rigorous or destructive testing (sand and dust, salt fog, mobility). It is our estimation that it may cost more to restore these carts to ‘like new’ condition than it would to scrap the carts and deliver new ones. Is there a specific reason that these carts need to be restored? Could the carts be kept as government owned goods at the OEM in a functioning but not deliverable state to be used for future testing, service bulletin test and validation vehicles and a test bed for future upgrades? Can the restoration requirements be further defined from “all electrical systems”?

A: The Government has revisited this strategy determination with all necessary Government stakeholders, and the determination has been made to keep the refurbishment requirement in the SOW for all first article units. Please refer to SOW paragraph 3.6.2.7 detailing the requirement for one each first article to remain at the contractor facility. Additionally, please note that based upon industry feedback the SOW 3.6.2.6 phrase of “entire electrical system” has been modified as follows: “…wiring harnesses, wiring bundles, and/or other electrical and electronic components sensitive to potentially damaging environment testing conditions” to avoid potentially mandatory replacement of otherwise fully functioning components.

Q28: The specification (section 3.9.2.2) says that cable storage hooks and hangars are forbidden, but they are were in the model that we reviewed today. Are cable hooks acceptable?

A: The conceptual illustration of the 144 kW GPU discussed by the Government during the Pre-Solicitation conference was strictly an example of one of many possible ways to visually interpret highlighted portions of the GPU Purchase Descriptions solely for fostering effective discussion between the Government and potential offerors. There is no mandate for a potential offeror to submit a proposed GPU design appearing exactly like the conceptual illustration. During the conference, it was stated that the illustration could generally be scaled down and applied to the smaller 72 kW GPU, in reference to the sides, panel doors, etc.—please note however, any 72 kW GPU must meet the requirements as specified in PD21WRWNZEA008—some of which differ from the 144 kW GPU requirements of PD21WRWNZEA007. In short, cable storage hooks are currently prohibited from the 72 kW GPU design; however the Government will continue to confer with our customer base and provide any updates if they become available.

Q29: Industry understands that component cut sheets are part of the technical proposal; do these count toward the 10 page limit?

A: Section L and Section M verbiage has been updated to clarify both what is required to be submitted with a potential offerors technical proposal and how the required submission is related to the total allowable technical proposal page limitation. Please refer to the updated Section L provision “Instructions to Offerors”.

Q30: When annual quantities are awarded between group A & B for serial production competitively, will the small business get the ‘normal’ small business preferences in the competitive evaluation?

A: No, the Government does not anticipate including small business preferences within the order competition criteria. However, the Government reserves the right to include any evaluation criteria determined necessary or required by regulatory requirements.

Q31: Today we don’t see any emphasis on industrial capacity and post award / delivery support. We have understood from previous discussions and recent history that the ability to deliver large volumes of units has been a challenge for previous USAF suppliers leading to extremely large lead times and the inability to replace the aging fleet. It would seem likely to avoid this again this would be an important discriminator and yet this specific performance requirement seems to be lost in the other requirements. Furthermore there seems to be no emphasis on post-delivery support. It would seem likely that if a customer was to invest the time and money into a program this large and be planning to procure such a large volume, that will be used in a global theater that the winning contractor have a very well established customer support history and a history of standing behind the product. This would include a robust service bulletin system, a well-controlled field support system and the ability to support ECPs and DMS over the life of the program. This appears to be an overlooked requirement for a program of this scale and cost. How does the USAF plan to more clearly define this as a required criteria and risk assessment?

A: The Government considers all of this information to be a part of the quality of performance information that will be obtained during the past performance evaluation, both via CPARS evaluations and interviews with customer POCs. This information is certainly an area of importance to the Government, and will be taken into consideration when assigning an overall performance confidence assessment rating.

An additional consideration that must be noted is the Government requires maximum flexibility in the information requested from customer POCs. Specifying these as the areas the Government will evaluate could potentially limit the scope of the Government’s past performance evaluation and lead to an incomplete evaluation. It stands to reason that during an interview with a customer POC, follow on questions may very well lead into areas outside of the questionnaire that are pertinent to the overall quality of performance. If the Government set limits on the information to be obtained, that type of information gathering would not be possible. That is the reasoning behind the Government’s determination to evaluate this information as a part of the quality of performance evaluation that will take place for each effort submitted.

Q32: Industry understands that the Buy American clauses that are called out in the RPF (FAR 52.252-4) allow procurement from trade partners – please confirm this understanding.

A: As long as the requirements of the DFARS clauses 252.225-7000 and 252.225-7001 are met, this is correct.

Q33: Industry has reviewed the criteria for past performance evaluation and compared it to the list of suppliers working towards participating in this RFP. When the list of potential Group A bidders (assuming that only large companies have the industrial capacity desired by the US Air Force to successfully compete in Group A) is compared to the requirements for past performance it is clear that there is only one large business today that can meet the past performance requirements.

As the documentation provided by the USAF (Instructions to Offerors) clearly states: “Past Performance “to provide or perform the load bank portion of the work or the 270 VDC output” is considered significantly more important than cost / price”– how does the government plan to maintain a competition when it is clear from historical contract awards that only one large business and few small businesses have qualified 270 VDC technology.

It has been the practice of the USG and Prime contractors to flow 270VDC requirements to small business (with one exception) for the past 10+ year based on NIACS codes. This excluded most large business from qualifying 270VDC kit for F-35 and F-22, even if the kit was developed at private expense. Therefore, it appears an unintentional outcome of this historical contracting policy has unfairly restricted the competitive landscape for this opportunity.

If the selection process entails passing through the past performance criteria gate first, then it becomes very unlikely that the government be able to conduct a fair and open competition once the only large business that currently has a MIL Qualified 270VDC product with the USG today is the only large business remaining in this category.

Furthermore, If the government decides to reach back to the first gate and allow a low score large business to pass in order to maintain competition, it is unclear how the final determination would still satisfy the strict open competition requirements imposed on an order of this magnitude. Also, it is unclear to industry how the trade-off between past performance and price will be evaluated if / when this decision is made.

Today, from industry perspective, the competitive landscape appears very narrow and the Group A winner appears pre-determined.

A: As a quick clarification, Support Equipment and Vehicles has never set-aside any 270 VDC for small business (on the contrary, since on-boarding the common support equipment flightline power workload for USAF in the year 2000, all generator set procurements including a 270 VDC output by Support Equipment and Vehicles have been full and open competition). Further, the Government has not stated that providing or performing the 270 VDC portion of the work is significantly more important than cost or price. Please note the individual past performance effort evaluation is comprised of multiple areas of review: recency, technical relevancy, scope/magnitude/complexity relevancy, and quality of performance.

Individual past performance evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Section L provision “Instructions to Offerors” and Section M provision “Evaluation Basis for Award” for each submitted effort determined to be in compliance with the recency requirement (15 years). Subsequent to the aforementioned individual past performance effort evaluations, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each offeror within Gate 1. This overall confidence assessment rating has been determined to be significantly more important than cost or price. The Government recognizes that not all businesses have the 270 VDC portion available in-house, and has included this area as a part of the definition for critical subcontractors. The purpose for the critical subcontractor definition is to ensure the past performance evaluation takes into consideration the performance of those entities other than the prime offeror that will be providing or performing key elements of the work—in this acquisition, the 270 VDC is a key element of the requirement.

The 270 VDC work is not an element that is required to be met in order to be ‘eligible’ for a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating. There is only one requirement currently identified in Section M, paragraph M.II.C.6. Note for Group A, and that requirement is that the performance record must demonstrate both generator and load bank performance (thus the reasoning behind Group A being allowed a maximum of six submittals). Additional verbiage has been added to clarify in Section M, paragraph M.II.C.6.

Q34: Attachment 4, page 3 says that each page of the proposal should be labeled as Controlled Unclassified Information. Making every document CUI makes managing files very difficult since unencrypted CUI cannot be kept on our computers. Can CUI labeling be applied more restrictively?

A: Source selection information, as defined in FAR 2.101, is a subset of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). As such, every page comprising an offeror’s proposal shall be labeled as CUI.

Q35: Small Businesses proposing in Group A and Group B proposals will not require a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. During the presentation it was mentioned that small business participation description was required. Could you please elaborate? Is there a preferred format for this data?

A: There is no preferred format for the submittal of the small business participation factor proposal (applicable to Group A proposals only). Both large and small businesses that propose to Group A shall submit a small business participation proposal in accordance with the submittal requirements identified in Section L, paragraph L.II.F. The information will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, paragraph M.II.E. Small business offerors for Group A may include their own performance as a part of the small business participation proposal submission. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as required by FAR 52.219-9, is only required from large business offerors, and goes into much more regulatory detail than the small business participation factor.

Q36: Date of RFP release?

A: At this time, the Government anticipates releasing the RFP in late October 2021. Please note that the team is working diligently to move the release date to the left; however, late October is a valid date with the information currently available to the team.

Q37: Engine requirement currently appears driven towards just one engine manufacturer based on the specific criteria. Is it possible to relax the stated requirements to allow industry to determine the most appropriate engine for the requirement?

A: Engine performance requirements can be found in Section 3.5 of both PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008.

Q38: The open floor requirement for the GPUs makes meeting the EMI requirements a challenge. Is it possible to allow industry to determine whether to provide an open or closed floor for this requirement?

A: Closed or sealed floors for both the 72 kW GPU and the 144 kW GPU are expressly prohibited in each GPU Purchase Description and are non-waiverable.

Q39: The stated criteria for the airflow makes meeting all other requirements a challenge—specifically, temperature and noise. Can the requirements be relaxed to allow industry to determine the best balance between the requirements?

A: The operating temperatures and EMI requirements for each end item (72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB) can be found in PD21WRWNZEA008, PD21WRWNZEA007, and PD21WRWNZEA009, respectively. Each potential offeror may need to make design trade-offs in many areas, not just the two noted areas, to ensure the proposed end item designs fully comply with all of the requirements found in each Purchase Description.

Q40: Will there be a requirement for offerors to identify which groups they are proposing to?

A: Yes. In accordance with Section L, paragraph L.II.C.1., offerors shall identify within the cover letter which group(s) the offeror is proposing to.

Q41: Can a large business pursue both groups, or are they restricted only to one group?

A: At this time, large business offerors may only propose to Group A.

Q42: It is noted that Group B is limited to a maximum of three efforts for the past performance submittal. Is there a preference for military or commercial effort submittals?

A: There is no preference or limitation to the type of effort submitted (military or commercial). However, please keep in mind the relevancy definitions when determining which efforts to submit.

Q43: Regarding the participants list for the industry day held in September 2020 and the pre-solicitation conference in August 2021, why are there different participants listed?

A: The participants list for both the industry day and the pre-solicitation conference included those companies that participated in the respective conferences. Some companies participated in one but not the other as a result of various circumstances applicable to each respective company.

Q44: In an effort to streamline the process and ensure companies are able to respond quickly, what are the next steps and what can companies expect as far as level of instructions?

A: The next steps will include the posting of this document along with updated documents with changes highlighted, the formal draft RFP, and finally the formal RFP. As the Government progresses through the process, industry will be kept in the loop regarding timelines and required response dates.

Q45: Are the first article units and the phrase “initial order” one and the same?

A: The initial order that is required at the time of contract award will consist of the post award conference at a minimum. The Government will work towards also ordering the first article units and associated data SubCLINs within that initial order; however, those may be ordered separately.

Q46: How will the initial order process work? Is there going to be a down-select?

A: There will be no down-select after the contracts are awarded. The current source selection process will be for the award of the two basic contracts (Group A and Group B). Upon the award of the two basic contracts, orders will be placed with both awardees in accordance with the terms and conditions of each respective contract with regards to quantities, timing or orders, order competitions, etc.

Q47: Is there a preference on digital or analog interfaces?

A: No preference; industry can provide all digital, all analog, or a mix of digital and analog.

Q48: What are the next steps/next major milestones we can prepare for?

A: The next major milestone will be the formal RFP issuance. As discussed above, it is anticipated that the formal RFP will be issued in late October. After formal RFP issuance, the major milestones will be proposal submission and the start of oral discussions for Gate 1 evaluations. All information regarding proposal submission timelines and the start of oral discussions will be provided once the formal RFP is released and evaluations are nearing conclusion, respectively.

Q49: Can one contractor win both Group A and Group B contracts?

A: No; should a small business win Group A, that same small business will not be eligible for the Group B award (and vice versa).

Q50: Can the Government explain how the guarantee and competitive quantities will come into play?

A: The Government will receive funding on an annual basis for the contracted end items. Specifically regarding the 72 kW GPUs, the quantity to be ordered will be determined based upon the funding received. Two orders will be issued immediately upon receiving the annual funding: One to Group A for 25% of the annual quantity; one to Group B for 25% of the annual quantity. These two orders will be the orders for the guaranteed quantities. The remaining 50% of the quantity will be competed between the two awardees; the order for the remaining 50% will go to the awardee that is determined to be the best value for that specific order competition.

Q51: When either contract’s total estimated maximum value is reached, what happens to the contract?

A: At the time the contract maximum value is reached for either contract, the contract will be considered complete, and no further orders will be issued against it.

Q52: For the 72 kW GPU, what size rotating machine is required, a 90 kVA nameplate rating or a 120 kVA nameplate rating?

A: Please refer to paragraph 3.3.1 of PD21WRWNZEA008 for minimum A.C. rotating machine sizing/nameplate rating and allowable rating reductions.

Q53: The primary challenge at this point for us is fitting everything into the stated packaging dimensions. Any possibility of relaxing the dimension requirements?

A: Each potential offeror may need to make design trade-offs in many areas to ensure the proposed end item design fully complies with all of the requirements found in each Purchase Description. Dimensional requirements for each end item (72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB) can be found in PD21WRWNZEA008, PD21WRWNZEA007, and PD21WRWNZEA009, respectively, and are non-waiverable.

Q54: Is the Government requiring a Tier 4 or Tier 3 engine?

A: There is no specified tier of engine within the Purchase Descriptions other than simply the latest Tier engine able to successfully operate with fuels containing more than 15 parts per million (PPM) sulfur. Please refer to paragraph 3.5.1 of PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008 detailing if/when a National Security Exemption is required for the potential offerors proposed engine design.

Q55: We have been reviewing the draft RFP and conducting market research regarding US small businesses that could manufacture the 72kW GPUs. Our research indicates that the number of such manufacturers is very limited, if there are any that would qualify. In light of this, we would like to know if the agency is considering asking the SBA for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule, pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.1204.

A: The market research conducted by the Government has indicated that there are small business vendors that can manufacture the 72 kW GPU; enough to warrant a partial small business set aside for the “Group B” 72 kW GPU-only portion of the effort. The Government will not be pursuing a waiver at this time.