FORCE Q A.doc

Questions and Answers Fuels Operational Readiness Capability Equipment (FORCE)

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8533-11-R-32637

14 Feb 2012

The following questions have been received in the WR-ALC/GRVKBB, Major Programs Contracting Office on the above FORCE requirement. The questions as well as the applicable answers are provided below for assistance to all potential offerors for the greater understanding of the Government’s requirement.

Question 1: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC13, paragraph 3.8.1.3.c, calls for two (2) hose assemblies, each 120 feet in length. Paragraph 3.8.1.4 calls for those hose assemblies to be 140 feet in length. What is the Government’s intention regarding the length of the hose assemblies?

Government Response: 3.8.1.3.c should read 120 feet. Amendment 0003 will incorporate the revision to the PD.

Question 2: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC14, Table 1, describes the TRICON containers as either Type 1 or Type 2. Paragraph 3.4.7 calls for all TRICON containers to be Type II. Will the Government clarify the requirements for TRICON containers?

Government Response: The TRICON containers shall be Type 1 and Type 2.

Question 3: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC14, Table 1 calls for various hose assemblies for each of the 3 configurations (FS, SC, and RC). The specific paragraphs 3.5.1.1, and 3.5.1.2, and 3.5.1.3 call for hose assemblies in quantities that do not match the quantities identified in Table 1. Will the Government clarify the requirements for the quantity of hose assemblies for each of the configurations?

Government Response: 3.5.1.1 should read 20; 3.5.1.2 should read 70; 3.5.1.3 quantities matched Table 1. Amendment 0003 will incorporate the revision to the PD.

Question 4: Paragraph (e) of Section L, Clause 52.252-5, states that subcontractors’ past/present performance will not be included for evaluation, even though the subcontractor may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. This restriction is repeated at other locations within the solicitation document. This restriction appears to severely limit competition, and unfairly benefit the incumbent contractor. Will the Government allow subcontractor past/present performance to be included in the evaluation?

Government Response: During the course of conducting market research and planning the acquisition strategy, the Government carefully considered the inclusion of critical subcontractor performance. However, based on the results of the Government's market research activities, the Government determined that the exclusion of critical subcontractor performance provided no unfair competitive advantages and does not restrict competition. While companies in the fuels container/transport industry used vendors and suppliers, they did not utilize "subcontractors" for specific functions in any sort of consistent manner. After a second, careful consideration, the Government's original determination to not include critical subcontractor performance remains valid. As such, the evaluation criteria shall not be revised to include critical subcontractor performance.

Question 5: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC12, paragraph 3.4.e. states “The pump unit shall be capable of delivering hydrocarbon fuels through a 6 inch hose line.” None of the Purchase Description documents associated with the Solicitation identify which hydrocarbon fuels may be processed by the FORCE system equipment. The various Purchase Descriptions do not specify, but include references to:

MIL-DTL-5624U, Grades Jet A-1, JP-4, JP-5, JPTS, and JP-5/JP-8 ST and to

MIL-DTL-83133F, NATO F-34 (JP-8), NATO-F-35, and JP-8+100

MIL-DTL-5624U is a current specification, but only addresses JP-4 and JP-5.

MIL-DTL-83133G is an older specification, for which Revisions G, G Amendment 1, and H have been issued.

Will the Government clarify the identity of the family of fuels to be processed by the FORCE equipment?

Government Response: All the fuels referenced in the PD may be pumped by the FORCE system. The engine paragraph (3.7.3 Engine) details the fuels it shall be able to run on. The latest revision for MIL-DTL-83133 shall be used (Amendment 0003 will incorporate this change).

Question 6: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC12, paragraph 3.4.e. states “The pump unit shall be capable of delivering hydrocarbon fuels through a 6 inch hose line.” None of the Purchase Description documents associated with the Solicitation identify which hydrocarbon fuels may be processed by the FORCE system equipment. The various Purchase Descriptions do not specify, but include references to:

MIL-DTL-5624U, Grades Jet A-1, JP-4, JP-5, JPTS, and JP-5/JP-8 ST and to

MIL-DTL-83133F, NATO F-34 (JP-8), NATO-F-35, and JP-8+100

MIL-DTL-5624U is a current specification, but only addresses JP-4 and JP-5.

MIL-DTL-83133G is an older specification, for which Revisions G, G Amendment 1, and H have been issued.

Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC12, paragraph 3.4.h. requires the pump unit to have a maximum of 150 PSI at the pump discharge.

Paragraph 3.4.i. requires the pump unit to have a minimum of 475 feet of Total Dynamic Head.

The requirements of 3.4.h. and paragraph 3.4.i. are mutually exclusive. The engineering formula for comparing head and PSI is:

Pressure = 0.434 X Head X Specific Gravity of the liquid

For the fuels identified in MIL-DTL-5624 and MIL-DTL-83133, the specific gravity ranges from .751 to .845. Using the engineering formula, at 150 PSI, the resulting feet of Head will range from 409 to 460. Using the engineering formula, at 475 feet of head, the PSI will range from 154 to 174.

Will the Government clarify the performance requirements for the pump unit?

Government Response: The pump shall meet a minimum of 475 feet of Total Dynamic Head (TDH). 150 psi at the pump discharge is what the pressure needs to be regulated to.

Question 7: Purchase Description PD10WRGBGBEC12, paragraph 3.7.3 states in part “ . . . the engine shall also be able to operate on the following fuels without performance degradation: . . .” The respective engine fuels have varying characteristics, which affect the engine performance. Engine performance with one of the fuels may be considered “degraded” from the engine performance with another one of the fuels. Is it the Government’s intention that the engine shall be able to operate on any of those identified fuels, and with any of those fuels deliver adequate power and reliability to meet the minimum requirements of the specification?

Government Response: Yes, the engine shall deliver adequate power for any of the fuels mentioned in engine paragraph 3.7.3 Engine.

Question 8: Will the Government consider an extension of the bid date from 8 Mar 2012 to 16 Mar 2012?

Government Response: As the changes incorporated via Amendment 0003 do not significantly change the specifications, the Government will not extend the RFP closing date at this time.

Matlock/WR-ALC/GRVKBB