RFP FA8533-08-R-10163 Questions_6May08doc

UMS Questions

RFP: FA8533-08-R-10163

Date: 6 May 2008

1. Shipment for all production units is stated as F.O.B destination with the locations listed as TBD. It would be almost impossible to determine what the shipping costs would be at this time. Can it be F.O.B. origin?

The contractor will have to estimate shipment costs based on worst case scenarios for FOB Destination. The contractor is only responsible for shipment to the port of entry for overseas shipments

2. In modification 5, UMS Questions, Question & Answer # 10 dealing with the adjustment of the platform and deck sections it is stated that just the deck sections will adjust. We are having a hard time envisioning how the split deck will be utilized if the main platform does no extend or retract. Can you please explain how this process will work? Previous UMS units had an extendable deck.

Misunderstanding in platform and deck sections. Platform was assumed as entire structure. Deck Section was assumed as split deck and main platform work station. The platform work area and split deck shall be capable of adjustment.

3. In 3.3 Maximum Footprint of the PD it is stated that the UMS platform elevated work height is 36’. In the aerial work platform industry the work height is commonly referred to as the maximum platform floor height plus 6’, for operator’s reach. Is the maximum platform floor height 30’ or 36’ The maximum platform height is 36’.

4. In 3.4 Weight in the PD it is stated that the unit shall not exceed 15,600 lbs. This may be hard to achieve if possible at all due to the requirements of 3.13 Electric motors in the PD. The previous UMS units weighed approximately 15,600 lbs. With the addition of the additional drive system, including electric drive and high capacity batteries, we expect the overall weight of the unit to increase. To meet the requirements for 2 hours of continuous operation for a unit of this size will require a sizeable electric motor and battery pack that could exceed 4,000 lbs. just for the motors and batteries. Could the weight requirement be raised?

Yes, the weight requirement could possibly be increased, but the UMS will still be required to meet Air Transportability requirements. The field will have to make the final determination for the excessive weight allowance. Contractor’s should propose weight limitations during the solicitation phase and not after contract award.

5. Item no. 0001AA in the RFP has the pre-production unit required delivery date as 520 calendar days. On page 35 of the RFP- Delivery schedule requirements it states the UMS Pre-Production unit shall be delivered no later that 420 calendar days. Can you please clarify when the required delivery date will be for the Pre-Production unit?

The required delivery date for the Pre-Production unit shall be within 520 days. The RFP will be corrected.

6. Item No. 0007 in the RFP states the Preliminary Design Review will be held at Robins AFB not later than 180 calendar days ARO. On Data Acquisition Document no: DI-ADMN-81249A and the statement of work it states the preliminary design review will be within four (4) month from the date of the award of the contract. Can you please clarify when the preliminary design review shall be presented?

Preliminary design review shall be presented within 4 months. The schedule will be corrected to reflect 120 days.

7. In 4.6.7 of the PD it states the UMS shall be moved from a resting position on a semi-smooth surface (paved surface) with a force no greater than 150 lbs. Due to the weight of the unit and multiple drive trains adding resistance it may not be possible to move the unit with only 150 lbs. of force. It takes 280 to 300 lbs. to move a similar weight unit. Is it the government’s intention to be able to move this unit by human means (push) or does this mean no more than 150 lbs of force to drive the unit or hook it up to be towed by a vehicle. Could the no greater than 150 lbs. of force requirement be raised?

Yes, the force requirement could possibly increase. The field will have to make the final determination for the excessive weight allowance.

8. On page 68 and 69 of the RFP “Subfactor Three: OSHA Requirements. It is that the offer will be evaluated on it detailed outline of how it intends to incorporate and implement the 29 CFR 1901 (OSHA) and AFOSH 91-501 requirements that apply to the UMS. Is the 29 CFR (OSHA) requirements supposed to be 1910 instead of 1901?

Yes, 1910 should have been called out. An amendment will be posted to correct this.

LIFT-A-LOFT CORPORATION