Questions_and_Answers_dtd_03_FEB_16.pdf

Questions and Answers February 3, 2016

Question 1: If the Vol III is submitted early as requested, can revisions be made in the final submission due Feb 8th?

Question 1 Answer: The Government will only evaluate one proposal. If Volume III is submitted early and revisions are made, it is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure a new complete Volume III is submitted and that the offeror has clearly stated which volume is the final submittal.

Question 2: Please confirm that submission of Vol III, Past Performance including the Fact Sheets submitted at the time of final submission on Feb 8th as opposed to an earlier date will be reviewed and scored the same or on an equal basis and without penalty as those that may have been submitted earlier by other tenderers .

Question 2 Answer: All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Question 3: Is there a government facility that has the ability, and is acceptable for this solicitation, to carry out First Article Testing for the MIL‐PRF‐32233B requirements. If yes, can you provide the name and contact information.

Question 3 Answer: A potential source for testing events is US Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants facility in San Antonio, TX, telephone 220‐522‐6941. However, it is the contractor’s decision/responsibility to identify facilities for testing.

Question 4: Can you provide clarification for the below in reference to MIL‐PRF‐32233B, Attachment 1 Acquisition Requirements / Ordering Data.

4) Paragraph 4.5.2.14 is revised to allow the use of test methods ISO 20743 or ISO 22196 for the testing of the following strains of microbes:

1) ATCC 6538‐Staphylococcus aureus

2) ATCC 15442‐Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Testing has shown that the ATCC 6538 Staphylococcus aureus can give repeatable results. The AATCC 15442 Pseudomonas aeruginosa tends to be more variable giving inconsistent results on repeatability tests using test specimens from the same batch of material. This can allow you to pass one time and fail the next. In the ISO 20743:2015 which is for textiles, there are 3 different transfer methods and 2 methods in which to count, which ones are to be used for consistency from supplier to supplier?

ISO 22196 allows one to calculate R, the value of the antibacterial activity, which can be used to characterize the effectiveness of an antibacterial agent. These values should be agreed upon by all interested parties. How does this value of the effectiveness of the antibacterial agent correlate to <95% reduction?

In addition to the testing above, in MIL‐PRF‐32233B, the testing requirement in 4.5.3 Test Schedule, Table VI. Test Schedule under Microbiological resistance, the First Article Sequence has an X(FS) and for Conformance Inspection Sequence an NR is checked. In Section 3.3 on page 4, the contractor shall verify that properties of all fabrics used during manufacturing of first articles and tank assembly lots meet the requirements of this specification and any property changes are subject to a re‐verification and/or an Engineering Change Proposal. If there is not a requirement to perform Conformance Inspection Sequence testing on microbiological resistance, how will this be regulated?

Question 4 Answer: The alternate test methods will be removed from the requirement.

The minimum number of test replicates, using ATCC 15442 will be increased.

Microbiological Resistance testing will be added to the fabric lot testing. Amendment 0003 to the RFP will be issued to revise Attachment I of MIL‐PRF‐32233B for clarification.

Question 5: Reference the TMCR for the manual for the tanks. It is our understanding that only one manual is required that will cover the 10K, 50K and 210K Collapsible Fuel Tanks created in a work package format to include the Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB). Is this a correct understanding? If not please clarify?

Question 5 Answer: Yes, only one technical manual is required and shall include the 10K, 50K, and 210K Collapsible Fuel Tanks. Please see CDRL C001, Technical Manual Contract Requirements, Part A, Table I, page 5.

Question 6: Reference the TMCR, Section 1.F, Note. The Note states that the Air Force provided FOSIs will only work with Datalogic Composing (FLC) software. During a previous project for the Support Equipment Division it was discovered that the WR Technical Order Home Office no longer uses the DLC software for SGML composing. That the FOSI have not been maintained and would not work with the current version of the DLC. On that project the same statement was removed from the TMCR after this was discovered. There are other software packages that will work with the Air Force DTD to produce a compliant SGML output. Can you please clarify if alternate SGML software is acceptable for use as long as it provides a properly formatted outputs that are compatible with the DTL specification listed in Section 2, Table 1?

Question 6 Answer: An alternate SGML software is acceptable as long as the delivered data is an SGML file that is compliant to the Air Force Document Type Definition (DTD).

Question 7: I note minor warranty discussion in the schedule of the RFP FA8533‐16‐R‐0002, but I don’t see any reference to a Warranty FAR in the RFP, am I missing it? Or is a Warranty FAR or DFAR not included.

Question 7 Answer: See FAR 52.212‐4, Contract Terms and Conditions‐Commercial Items, paragraph d.